Allowed

Yatendra @ Pintoo and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2019A482/17680/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant husband in a matrimonial dispute. As all disputes were settled amicably, the Court held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process and a waste of time, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire proceedings of charge sheet No. 67 of 2015 in Case Crime No. 556 of 2014 pending before the CJM, Etah.

Yatendra @ Pintoo and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17680 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Yatendra @ Pintoo And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Sagar Gupta,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Narayan Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit annexing the divorce decree filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shyam Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the state.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of charge sheet dated 23.2.2015 as charge sheet No. 67 of 2015 in Case Crime No. 556 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Etah pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah.

¶8

Referring to the compromise affidavit on record, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that all the terms and conditions entered into between the parties have been fulfilled. It was a matrimonial dispute and all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties and they have parted their ways. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, opposite party no.2 has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid charge-sheet pending before the trial court are quashed.

¶10

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

¶11

In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.

¶12

Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the

¶13

criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.

¶14

In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶15

The entire proceedings of charge sheet dated 23.2.2015 as charge sheet No. 67 of 2015 in Case Crime No. 556 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Etah pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah against the applicants are quashed in terms of compromise.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.7.2019 ss

Yatendra @ Pintoo and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yatendra @ Pintoo and 3 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

Smt. Lubna and 03 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Sunita Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rambali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sahab Lal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashraf and 03 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Dilshad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another