Allowed

Vijay Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019A482/2419/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed criminal proceedings involving Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that since the parties had amicably settled the dispute and were residing together happily, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. The ruling relied on Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing in matrimoni

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 3621 of 2018 arising from Crime No. 171 of 2017 are quashed in terms of compromise.

Vijay Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2419 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Raj Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- M.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pavan Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Heard Shri M.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pavan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the state.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet no. 50 of 2018 dated 17.05.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 3621 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 171 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Agra pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Agra.

¶7

Referring to the joint affidavit filed on 10.11.2019, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although mediation was not successful in the matter before the mediation and conciliation centre of this Court yet parties have settled all the dispute pending between them out of court and they are residing together happily. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the joint affidavit filed by the parties and argued that no fruitful purpose will serve 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.

¶8

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 criminal case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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 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.

¶13

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

¶14

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 3621 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 171 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Agra pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Agra against the applicant are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Sanjeet

Vijay Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Devendra Kumar @ Rinku and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Anand Kumar @ Babli Vs State of U.P.and Others

Krishna Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of U.P.and Another

Horam and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Siya Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Other

Kailash Chandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another