High Court of U.P. Quashed orders in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition challenging criminal proceedings for marital offences after parties settled amicably and resumed living together.
Impugned orders dated 17.03.2010 and 5.2.2010 and entire proceedings in Crl. Complaint No. 28/2009 were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6879 of 2010
Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Asif Kamal Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.10.2018, Smt. Meena Devi is present before this Court and she is duly verified by Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. Her presence has been recorded in the order sheet.
Heard Sri Mohd. Asif Kamal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 17.03.2010 passed by Session Judge Orai Jalaun in Criminal Revision No. NIl/2010 Shyan Sunder versus Raja Ram Dohre and order dated 5.2.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate in Crl. Compliant No. 28/2009, (Raja Ram Vs. Shyam Sunder and others), U/S 494, 498A, 120B IPC, P.S.-Kotwali Orai Jalaun (annexure nos. 6 and 4 to this writ petition).
b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorary for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. Crl. Complaint No. 28/2009, (Raja Ram Vs. Shyam Sunder and others), U/S 494, 498A, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Orai Jalaun pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Orai.
c) to issue such other and further appropriate writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
d) to award the cost of petition in favour of the petitioners."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present complaint has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 who is his father-in-law. Presently, there is no dispute between husband and wife and they are living peacefully. It is further submitted that one affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 by his daughter namely Smt. Meena Devi, wife of applicant and in the said affidavit it is mentioned that father of the deponent was expired on 28.11.2011 and both the parties i.e
applicant-accused and victim are having no dispute, therefore, the present case may be finally decided and orders under challenge may be quashed.
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has not disputed the said fact and submitted 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 order under challenge in this petition.
Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner and he has also stated that as on date petitioner and victim are living peacefully as husband and wife. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
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 impugned order dated 17.03.2010 passed by Session Judge Orai Jalaun in Criminal Revision No. NIl/2010 and order dated 5.2.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate in Crl. Compliant No. 28/2009 , are hereby quashed.
The present application is, accordingly, allowed .
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Sartaj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders in the criminal complaint case filed against the petitioner for marital disputes be quashed following settlement.
Whether the quashing of the proceedings would serve any useful purpose now that the parties are living peacefully.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶16
2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi) Vs. State of Haryana · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and anotherRelied on¶16
J.T. 2008 SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another) · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶16
(2012)10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab) · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶16
2014 Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another)
Shyam Sunder & Others
State Of U.P.
Another
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
