Allowed

Farhan Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2019A482/29895/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant applied to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute regarding Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and D.P. Act after reaching a settlement and payment of Rs. 4 lakhs. The court allowed the application, holding that quashing was necessary to restore peace and avoid waste of time in a settled private dispute.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Case No. 78 of 2016 against the applicant arising from Crime No. 54 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act were quashed.

Farhan Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29895 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Farhan Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the state.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 30.06.2015 in Case No. 78 of 2016 (State Vs. Farhan) arsing out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-IV, Kanpur Nagar in terms of compromise.

¶8

Matter was sent to the mediation and conciliation centre. Parties appeared before the centre and settlement was arrived at between them on 26.07.2017. Entire amount i.e Rs. 4 lakhs has been paid by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2 in lieu of permanent alimony including the amount of MEHAR.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that 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 AGA submits that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, leaned AGA 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 Case No. 78 of 2016 (State Vs. Farhan) arsing out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-IV, Kanpur Nagar against the applicant are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Sanjeet

Farhan Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farhan Ahmad 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 Atik and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Vinod Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Dr.v.K. Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalattar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shweta Sachan @ Shweta Chung Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zakir Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another