Allowed

Shashi Prakash Srivastava and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2019A482/17121/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act based on a matrimonial settlement. The Court noted a prior settlement and a related DV case quashal, allowing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 4817 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act were quashed to allow parties to live peacefully.

Shashi Prakash Srivastava and 6 Others Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17121 of 2015

¶3

Applicant :- Shashi Prakash Srivastava And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ram Kesh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri B.B.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Kesh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 4817 of 2014 (Smt. Shagun Srivastava vs. Shashi Prakash Sirvastava and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.28, Azamgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that essentially, the dispute between the parties is a matrimonial one and both the parties have entered into compromise. In this behalf a joint affidavit of opposite party no.2 and applicant no.1 has been filed today in which it is stated that both parties have settled all their disputes and differences amicably and they are now living together happily with their ten years old daughter. In Para 5 of the supplementary affidavit it is stated that on the basis of compromise between the parties one case under the Domestic Violence Act has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 19.9.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.34169 of 2019, whose copy has been annexed as AnnexureSA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. Therefore, in terms of the compromise, the parties have agreed to withdraw all the cases against each other so that they may live amicably and peacefully.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that since both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants any more and has no objection, if the proceedings impugned in the present application are quashed in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the complaint which transpires that

¶10

applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute amicably.

¶11

In view of law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab and another in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24 September, 2012, the proceedings in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶12

Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., accordingly stands allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Vikas

Shashi Prakash Srivastava and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Prakash Srivastava and 6 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

Manoj Pandey and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Kumar Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Rahman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Hema and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aayush Khemka Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mushahid and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others