Allowed

Ankur Goyal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018A482/875/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant filed application under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings after entering a compromise and settlement agreement. Court allowed the application based on the settlement terms and mutual desire not to pursue the case.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire proceedings along with the charge sheet dated 14.11.2016 arising out of the mentioned crime number.

Ankur Goyal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 875 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Ankur Goyal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deelip Kumar Pathak,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶6

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings along with charge sheet dated 14.11.2016 in Case No.6230 of 2016 (computer No. 5501156/2016) arising out of Case Crime No.214 of 2016, under Sections 308, 325, 324, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Transport Nagar, District Meerut pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-VIII, Meerut.

¶7

Earlier, vide order dated 13.1.2017, matter was referred to Mediation Centre and the parties have entered into compromise. They have also signed the settlement agreement dated 17.3.2018.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has complied the terms and conditions of settlement agreement dated 17.3.2018 and has already given a draft of Rs. 3 lacs to opposite party no. 2 as per paragraph 6(g) of the aforesaid agreement. As provided in settlement agreement dated 17.3.2018, applicants and opposite party no. 2 have also filed divorce petition under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act.

¶9

He informed that along with present application, one more Application U/S 482 No. 792 of 2018 was connected and when the connected matter was taken up on 20.11.2011, Court has passed detailed order. Order is being reproduced herein below;

¶10

"Sri Sharik Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the parties have entered into compromise before the Mediation Centre and as per Settlement Agreement, an amount of Rs. 6 lacs is required to be paid by the applicants to the opposite party no. 2 after final decree of divorce petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. It is further stated in paragraph (h) of the Settlement Agreement that it is

¶11

agreed between the parties that all the Criminal and Civil cases filed by them against each other shall be withdrawn/quashed by them by taking appropriate steps before the Court/Authorities concerned within one month from the date of of Settlement Agreement. He further stated that the proceedings against the opposite party no. 2 has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 27.8.2018 on the basis of Settlement Agreement. He requested that present proceedings pending against the applicants before this Court may also be quashed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that since last four dates, the applicants are not appearing before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut for second motion, therefore, proceeding under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act is withheld. He informed that the next date fixed in the aforesaid case is 27.11.2018.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on 27.11.2018 the applicants shall appear before the court below and deposit a draft of Rs. 6 lacs before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut which shall be paid to opposite party no. 2 after final decree of divorce. He further stated that in case the applicants deposit a draft of Rs.6 lacs and appear for the proceeding under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act on 27.11.2018, the present criminal proceeding pending against the applicants before this Court may be quashed for which learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has no objection.

¶14

List this case on 29.11.2018 in the additional cause list alongwith connected revision."

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has deposited Rs. 6 lacs by two Bank drafts of Rs. 3 lacs before Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut and same shall be paid to opposite party no. 2 at the time of final decree of divorce petition, which was filed under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act. Photocopy of two drafts and certified copy of order sheet having endorsement of deposit of money have been produced today, which are taken on record. He further submits that applicants have also initiated criminal proceedings against family members of opposite party no. 2, in which, two 482 Cr.P.C. applications were filed and out of which, one Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22100 of 2017 was decided on 27.8.2018 on the basis of settlement agreement dated 17.3.2018, therefore, he requested that the present proceedings may also be quashed in light of settlement agreement between the parties.

¶16

Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party

¶17

no. 2 has not disputed the said fact and has admitted that one of criminal proceeding initiated against opposite party no. 2 has already been quashed by this Court on 27.8.2018 in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22100 of 2017. He further submits that the disputes have been amicably settled between the parties, therefore on the basis of compromise the Hon'ble Court may kindly be quash the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶18

In view of above, the applicants and respondent no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶19

Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi) Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the judgement of the Apex Court reported in J.T. 2008 SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another) as well as Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and reported in 2014 Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶20

The present application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Arvind

Ankur Goyal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Goyal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amajut and Othersr Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sunder and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Dutt Vs State

Sashank Jain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhule Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Charan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another