Allowed

Rohit and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2019A482/29940/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court quashed the charge-sheet and proceedings of a matrimonial case involving offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. The ruling relied on an amicable settlement reached by the parties post-divorce, finding no utility in continuing the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet No.118 of 2018 and entire proceedings of Case No.931 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, 1961 are quashed.

Rohit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29940 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rohit And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has filed counter affidavit today in the Court, which is also taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet No.118 of 2018 dated 09.06.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.931 of 2018 (State Vs. Rohit and others) arising out of Case Crime No.344 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, 1961, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Moradabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has, at the very outset, stated that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement on 10.06.2017 and has drawn the attention of the Court to the settlement agreement which is annexed herewith as Annexure No.S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit. In Para 3 of the settlement deed, it has been stated that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- had been agreed to be paid to the Opposite Party No.2, which has also been paid to Opposite Party No.2 and after dissolution of their marriage, they were free to marry any person and they do not want to further pursue the present proceedings and has no objection, if the same is quashed against them.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the parties has reached at an amicable settlement in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that they have separated and do not want to further pursue the present proceedings and has no objection, if the same is quashed.

¶11

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶12

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶13

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008)9 SCC 677]

¶14

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1

¶15

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶16

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶17

Wherein 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.

¶18

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 case.

¶19

Accordingly, the proceedings of Charge-Sheet No.118 of 2018 dated 09.06.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.931 of 2018 (State Vs. Rohit and others) arising out of Case Crime No.344 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, 1961, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Moradabad are hereby quashed.

¶20

The application under Section 482 is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Zafar

Rohit and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit 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

Sonu @ Charan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Kumar @ Mantri and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ibrahim and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Saroj Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shankar Lal Kandora and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sri Siddharth and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another