Allowed

Mast Charan and Others v. State

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2018CRLR/1575/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision for quashing a summoning order in a Section 498A IPC case, the court observed that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and executed a compromise deed. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding settlement in matrimonial disputes, the court quashed the criminal proceedings stating no useful purpose would be served by continuing them.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 305 of 1992 (Smt. Kashmira Devi Vs. Mast Charan and others) under Section 498A IPC are hereby quashed.

Mast Charan and Others Vs State — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 60

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1575 of 1992

¶3

Revisionist :- Mast Charan And Others Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- R.K. Sangloo Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Sri Narendar Kumar Sahu, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶6

Heard Sri Kashi Naresh Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Narendar Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶7

The present revision has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 8.9.1992 passed by the IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 305 of 1992 (Smt. Kashmira Devi Vs. Masi Charan and others, under Section 498A I.P.C., Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionists has filed supplementary affidavit alongwith affidavit of complainant dated 6.10.2018 and compromise deed and submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise. Copy of the said compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure2 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionists states that the matter has been compromised and the respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the matter any further as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the present case is finally decided.

¶10

Sri Narendar Kumar Sahu, 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 quashed the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶11

In view of above, the revisionists and opposite party 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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) , proceedings in Complaint Case No. 305 of 1992 (Smt. Kashmira Devi Vs. Masi Charan and others, under Section 498A I.P.C., Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh, is hereby quashed.

¶14

The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.11.2018 Rmk.

Mast Charan and Others v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mast Charan and Others v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Dodwal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Gulzar Ahmad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Nayak and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Chandra Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Chaman Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ghanshyam and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others