The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash proceedings in a matrimonial offence case. Considering a valid compromise dated 9.10.2018 and appropriate court orders, the court held proceedings served no useful purpose and were quashed.
The proceedings of the aforesaid Case 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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14561 of 2019
Applicant :- Mohd Imran And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Jamal Alvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Sri Syed Istiyaq Ahmad, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama today on behalf of the opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Rizwan Jamal Alvi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Syed Istiyaq Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to quash/stay the charge sheet dated 15.10.2017 pursuant to Case No. 653 of 2018 (State v. Mohd. Imran and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 219/16 of 2016, under section 498A, 504 IPC and 3/4 of D. P. Act, Police Station Utraon, District- Allahabad pending in the court of ACJM, court no. 10, Allahabad in the light of compromise dated 9.10.2018.
It is contended by learned counsel for the parties that upon the intervention of some respectable persons of the society and relatives of both the parties have entered into compromise on 9.10.2018 and in support of this contention an affidavit of compromise has been annexed as Annexure- 4 to the affidavit filed in support of application and the order of the ACJM 10.1.2019 annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of application. It is further contended that on date there exist no dispute between the parties.
Perused the affidavit of compromise which has been annexed as Annexure- 4 and the order of the ACJM 10.1.2019 annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of application.
In view of the above contention this Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:- B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 .
In the aforesaid cases, 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. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
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 purpose shall be served by
prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 15.4.2019 ssm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and charge sheet in a matrimonial offence case under Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act can be quashed on account of a compromise.
Whether the Appropriate Authority should prolong proceedings given the existence of a valid compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherApplied¶10
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationApplied¶10
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersApplied¶10
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabApplied¶10
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabApplied¶10
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherApplied¶11
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd Imran And 2 Others
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
