Allowed

Shiv Mohan Kaushik and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2019A482/14878/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving matrimonial and other offences. The court quashed the case based on the existence of a compromise between the parties, holding that no further proceedings were useful.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the complaint case under Case Crime No. 64 of 2016 were quashed. No order as to costs.

Shiv Mohan Kaushik and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14878 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shiv Mohan Kaushik And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party, is taken on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2016 (State Vs. Shiv Mohan Kaushik and others) under sections 498A, 323 and 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana (Safai), District Etawah pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

¶7

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 4 of the counter affidavit, filed by Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.

¶8

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶9

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶10

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶11

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶18

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.4.2019 Arti

Shiv Mohan Kaushik and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Mohan Kaushik and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

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

Gyan Prakash Agarwal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Netra Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Shukla @ Beeru and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prabhu Narayan Shan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neelam Vs State of U.P. and Another