Allowed

Kamlesh Chaturved and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 May 2019A482/17981/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a domestic dispute. The court found that parties had enacted a compromise on 18.07.2017. Relying on Apex Court precedents regarding compromise in cognizable offences, the court held no useful purpose would be served by prolonging proceedings and quashed the case.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 122/2012 are hereby quashed.

Kamlesh Chaturved and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17981 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Kamlesh Chaturvedi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel on behalf of applicants and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash/stay the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 122/2012 Smt. Kirti Pandey Vs. Subhodh Kumar, under sections 498A IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 22/2008 pending in the court of MM-IV, Kanpur Nagar (in view of compromise).

¶8

The argument is that applicant no. 1 is Nandoi and applicant no. 2 is the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 and the husband and wife/opposite party no. 2 entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 has submitted compromise before the concern court on 18.07.2017. A copy of the compromise dated 18.07.2017 has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 complaint case.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 6.5.2019 Arti

Kamlesh Chaturved and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Chaturved and Another 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

Rajveer Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rihana Begum and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ashutosh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Geeta Shastri and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Madhu Verma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another