Allowed

Manoj @ Ankit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 May 2019A482/16848/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes Narayan Bali Waqf proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a matrimonial dispute instituted under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, holding that a settlement reached between the parties renders the trial a futile exercise.

What did the court decide?

Criminal prosecution pending before A.C.J.M. II, Etawah under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act is quashed.

Manoj @ Ankit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16848 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj @ Ankit Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Yadav,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to set aside the impugned N.B.W. order dated 21.1.2019 passed by A.C.J.M. II, Etawah in Criminal Complaint Case No. 56 of 2018 (Smt. Rachna @ Nema vs. Manoj @ Ankit Kumar and others), under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah, pending before the court of A.C.J.M. II, Etawah.

¶8

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the dispute between the parties has been compromised, a certified copy of compromise application dated 14.05.2019 has been annexed as Annexure- S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application.

¶9

The attention of this court was brought on the record which reflects the fact that both the parties have entered into a compromise. They have resolved their dispute and now wants to live together in peace. A compromise has been entered into between the parties and the compromise has been verified by the court below on 14.05.2019 in which O.P. No. 2 has averred that she does not wish to prosecute the applicants as such no useful purpose would be served by keeping the application pending before this court.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submissions made by the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute and O.P. No. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, in such a circumstances there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicants, in case they are tried by the trial court, the trial of the applicants shall be a futile exercise, it shall not serve any purpose and there would be no chance of conviction. In such circumstances the Supreme Court's decision in the case of B.S. Joshi and another Versus State of Hariyana and another

¶11

(2003) (4) S.C.C. 675 .

¶12

The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, is applicable in this case also. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice the proceedings of criminal prosecution bearing impugned N.B.W. order dated 21.1.2019 passed by A.C.J.M. II, Etawah in Criminal Complaint Case No. 56 of 2018 (Smt. Rachna @ Nema vs. Manoj @ Ankit Kumar and others), under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah, pending before the court of A.C.J.M. II, Etawah are hereby quashed.

¶13

Accordingly this application is allowed .

¶14

Order Date :- 21.5.2019 S Rawat

Manoj @ Ankit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj @ Ankit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Raj Nair Vs State of U.P.

Rajauti Devi Vs State of Up and 6 Others

Sanjay Kumar Keshri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sajal Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Swarnkar Vs Union of India and Another

Mohan Swaroop Gautam Vs State of Up and Another