Allowed

Shrawan Kumr and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2019A482/16500/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings involving alleged matrimonial offences. Relying on Supreme Court precedents and a verified compromise deed dated 3.4.2019, the court held no useful purpose in prolonging the case and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1366 of 2019 (State v. Shrawan Kumar and others) were quashed.

Shrawan Kumr and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16500 of 2019 Applicant :- Shrawan Kumr And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, and Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material brought on record.

¶5

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to stay/quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1366 of 20-19 (State v. Shrawan Kumar and others) Case Crime No. 222 of 2018, under sections 498A, 323,504,506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, against application nos. 1 to 5 as well as under section 498A, 323,504,354 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act against applicant no. 6, Police Station- Hastinapur, District- Meerut as well as the charge sheet dated 30.7.2018 and its order of cognizance dated 29.1.2019.

¶6

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that parties have entered into the compromise for living separately under the full and final settlement and as such compromise deed was prepared in the form of affidavit on 3.4.2019 containing the details terms and conditions of settlement. A true copy of the compromise deed in the form of affidavit has been filed and annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of application. In paragraph 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 the same version has been reiterated.

¶7

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 .

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶12

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

Order Date :- 26.4.2019 ssm

Shrawan Kumr and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrawan Kumr and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Shiv Poojan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagwan Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arif and 9 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Raheesh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Krishna Nand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another