Allowed

Santosh Kumar Pathak and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2019A482/12100/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving alleged domestic violence and cruelty. Upon verifying a compromise arrived at between the parties, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings and accordingly quashed the complaint case.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Complaint Case no. 108 of 2015 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC are quashed.

Santosh Kumar Pathak and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12100 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pathak And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Dinesh Varun

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Dinesh Varun, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 108 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Sector-39, Noida, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar pending in the court concerned.

¶7

On 01.04.2019, following order has passed:

¶8

" Short counter affidavit along with vakalatnama filed today by Sri Dinesh Varun, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 are taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A.

¶10

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case no. 108 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Sector-39, Noida, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in terms of the compromise.

¶11

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their wellwishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶12

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶13

List this case on 23.05.2019 before the appropriate Bench, showing the name of Sri Dinesh Varun as counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 25.04.2019 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

¶15

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise to the court concerned within three days.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants ".

¶17

In compliance of the order dated 01.04.2019, counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit before this Court annexing the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the concerned court by which compromise between the parties has been verified.

¶18

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of the Apex Court:

¶19

a) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another ; (2003) 4 SCC 675 ;

¶20

b) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ; (2008) 9 SCC 677 ;

¶21

c) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others ; (2008) 16 SCC 1 ;

¶22

d) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab ; (2012) 10 SCC 303 ;

¶23

e) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ; (2014) 6 SCC 466;

¶24

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another ; 2013 (83) ACC 278 , in which the law expounded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful

¶26

purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶27

Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case no. 108 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Sector-39, Noida, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar are hereby quashed.

¶28

This Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Order Date :- 27.9.2019

¶30

Priya

Santosh Kumar Pathak and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Pathak and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Rai Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ankul Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Autar @ Sajan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Singh Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another