Allowed

Mohd. Irfan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2019A482/22822/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted under the IPC against the applicants. The court held that as the underlying matrimonial dispute had been amicably settled, continuation of the proceedings served no purpose and constituted an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 431 of 2016 and the summoning order dated 08.07.2016 against the applicants are quashed.

Mohd. Irfan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22822 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Irfan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit annexing there with compromise paper entered into between the parties and verification report the court below has been filed which is taken on record.

¶6

List revised. None present for the opposite party no. 2.

¶7

Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the state.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case no. 431 of 2016 as well as summoning order dated 08.07.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad, under Sections 354-A, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kaanth, District- Moradabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad.

¶9

Vide order dated 04.08.2016, matter was referred to the District Legal Services Authority, Moradabad and progress report was called for. In response to the said order, vide letter dated 13.12.2016, Secretary District Legal Services Authority has informed that both parties have appeared before the mediation and canciliation centre at district level and dispute pending between them was amicably settled.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that it is a matrimonial dispute and all disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. At this stage, learned counsel further submits that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served by 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 .

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA submits that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶12

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

¶13

In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in noncompoundable 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

The entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 431 of 2016 as well as summoning order dated 08.07.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad, under Sections 354-A, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kaanth, District- Moradabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad against the applicants are quashed in terms of compromise.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.7.2019 Sanjeet

Mohd. Irfan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Irfan 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

Mohammad Waaris @ Golu Chhamman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raeesh Vs State of U.P.

Gangawati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mairaj Quraishi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Ravindra and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another