Allowed

Harjeet Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2019A482/27502/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 420 and 506 IPC in a matrimonial dispute, citing a mutual settlement and finding continuation to be an abuse of process and a waste of time.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 152 of 2011 (State Vs. Santa Singh and others) are quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Harjeet Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27502 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Harjeet Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit annexing the verification report filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, 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 Complaint Case No. 152 of 2011 (State Vs. Santa Singh and others), under Sections 420, 506 IPC, P.S. Ramraj, District- Muzaffar Nagar pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar in terms of compromise.

¶8

Pursuant to order dated 26.07.2019, the parties appeared before the court below on 09.08.2019 for verification of settlement / compromise, who were duly identified by their counsel's, while verifying the compromise / settlement dated 20.08.2019.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a matrimonial dispute and all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. 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 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.

¶10

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 complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 152 of 2011 (State Vs. Santa Singh and others), under Sections 420, 506 IPC, P.S. Ramraj, District- Muzaffar Nagar pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar against the applicants are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.10.2019 Sanjeet

Harjeet Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjeet Singh 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

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Kuber and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ashok Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Rizwan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar @ Bhura Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudesh Chand Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Anr.