Single judge quashed FIR and charge sheet in domestic violence case (Sec 498A IPC) upon finding a compromise between parties, holding proceedings served no useful purpose despite offences being cognizable.
FIR dated 22.03.2017, Charge Sheet No. 01 dated 05.08.2019, and order dated 11.03.2019 in Case No. 2840 of 2018 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. - 14619 of 2019
Applicant :- Ankush Mehra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the F.I.R. dated 22.03.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 41 of 2017, U/s 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act in P.S. Mahila Thana, District Gautam Buddh Nagar as well as Charge Sheet No. 01 dated 05.08.2019 and order dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Fast Track Court, District Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 2840 of 2018, State Vs. Ankush Mehra arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2017, U/s 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 3 of the short counter affidavit, filed by Shri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
5. 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 complaint 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 Arti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 498A and related IPC provisions can be quashed based on a compromise between the parties.
Whether a compromise in a cognizable offence renders the continuation of criminal proceedings inutile under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherApplied¶8
(2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationApplied¶8
[2008)9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersApplied¶8
( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabApplied¶8
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabApplied¶8
( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherApplied¶14
[2013 (83) ACC 278]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ankush Mehra
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
