Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, and 506 IPC involving matrimonial dispute in view of amicable compromise between parties and relevant settled law allowing settlements in cognizable offences.
Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4148 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 639 of 2011 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19723 of 2019
Applicant :- Bablu @ Rakesh Verma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Shanker Srivastava,Nikhil Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Sri Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his Vakalatnama alongwith Short counter affidavit dated 12.5.2019 today in the Court which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Hari Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4148 of 2018 (State Vs. Visheshwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.639 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present case which arises from a matrimonial dispute has been compromised between as during the pendency of proceedings better sense prevail between the parties who have now entered into an amicable settlement, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application and a copy of the said compromise application has also been filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad by the parties through counsel and said Court below has passed the order dated 31.8.2018 rejecting the compromise application on the ground that the offence in question is not compoundable, a copy of said order is annexed as annexure5 to this 482 Cr.P.C. application.
Sri Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the opposite party no.2 also does not want pursue the matter any further.
The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9
SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
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.
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.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.5.2019 Dev/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon a compromise in matrimonial disputes involving non-compoundable offences.
Whether the existence of an amicable settlement between parties warrants quashing of under-trial proceedings.
Whether the court should allow quashing of proceedings arising from Sections 498-A, 323, and 506 IPC upon settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherFollowed¶12
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationFollowed¶12
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersFollowed¶12
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶12
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶12
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherExplained¶18
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Bablu @ Rakesh Verma
An Other
State Of U.P.
An Other
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
