Allowed

Dinesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2018CRLP/17981/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner prayed to quash FIR in matrimonial dispute. Court, noting successful mediation and settlement agreement with mutual withdrawal of all criminal cases, held no useful purpose served in further proceedings. FIR quashed; writ allowed subject to agreement terms.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR dated 26.7.2017 quashed; writ petition allowed subject to fulfillment of terms in settlement agreement.

Dinesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17981 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Surat Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Ibha Sinha, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned FIR dated 26.7.2017, case crime no. 447 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Mugal Sarai, District Chandauli.

¶7

This matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court by order dated 5.9.2017.

¶8

From the perusal of the report of the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court dated 26.2.2018, it transpires that the mediation between the parties has succeeded and the parties have entered into settlement agreement before Mediation & Concealiation Centre of this Court on 22.2.2018. The original settlement agreement is on the record of this Case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the matrimonial dispute between the parties from which the impugned FIR emanates has been amicably settled before the mediation centre of this Court and the parties have entered into a settlement agreement on 22.2.2018 and according to clause 6g of the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed to withdraw all the criminal cases filed by them against each other, the impugned is liable to be quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

Since the matrimonial dispute between the parties from which the impugned FIR has emanated has been amicably settled before the Mediation Centre of this Court and the parties have entered into a compromise on 22.2.2018 under which they have agreed to withdraw all the criminal cases filed by them against each other, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding any further against the petitioners in this matter. The impugned FIR is quashed and the writ petition is allowed subject to fulfillment of the claum mentioned in the aforesaid agreement/settlement.

¶12

There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶13

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 20.3.2018 Shiraz

Dinesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

preeti Vs State of U.P. and 03 others

Smt. Vimlesh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Othrs.

Jay Shankar Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sartaj @ Dhoni and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Chandra Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others