Allowed

Vinay Prakash Srivastav and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2019A482/12394/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings resulting from matrimonial disputes. The court held that since the parties had amicably settled the dispute via a compromise and the complainant withdrew prosecution, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4370 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 141 of 2018, were quashed.

Vinay Prakash Srivastav and Another Vs State of Up… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12394 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Prakash Srivastav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri A.K.Yadav,learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the opposite party and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4370 of 2018, State Vs. Vinay Prakash Srivastava and another, arising out of Case Crime No.141 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C., & Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar, pending in the Court of C.J.M.,Siddharth Nagar.

¶7

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a compromise dated 8.1.2019 and filed the same before the Court below which the learned Magistrate verified the compromise entered into between the parties vide order dated 8.1.2019 copy of which has been annexed as annexure-8 to the present application, hence the proceeding against the applicants be quashed.

¶8

Sri Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has admitted the fact of the compromise.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012)10 SCC 303 and has submitted that the applicants and opp. party No.2 have compromised the dispute and as such opp. party No.2 does not want to press the present case against the applicants. The opp. party No. 2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶10

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

¶11

In this regard the view taken by the Apex court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh versus State Of Punjab (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants finds force that this court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceeding as the dispute being matrimonial in nature and have been amicably settled between husband and wife.

¶12

Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence the proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶13

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.4.2019

¶15

Vinay Prakash Srivastav and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Prakash Srivastav and Another v. State of Up 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

Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Javed Vs Union of India through Ncb Lucknow

Pankaj @ Veerbhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hasnain Vs State of Up and 5 Others

Harish Belwal and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Gulfhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another