Allowed

Sanjay Sangwan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2019A482/35147/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under s. 482 CrPC, the High Court allowed the applicant's plea to quash criminal proceedings and appeal based on a subsequent settlement. The court held that since the matrimonial dispute was amicably resolved and no heinous offence was involved, continuing the trials would be a waste of time.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of based on the compromise; conviction and sentence were set aside; applicants acquitted. All pending complaint case proceedings were quashed.

Sanjay Sangwan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35147 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Sangwan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Krishna Pandey,Manish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Mishra,Ramakant Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Case called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶6

Joint affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

The present application u/s 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceeding of criminal appeal no. 28 of 2019 pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. XII, Meerut consequent to order dated 18.2.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in criminal case no. 3447 of 2017, arising out of case crime no. 204 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut as well as the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 1403 of 2016 under Section 420 IPC pending before A.C.J.M., Court No.4, Meerut, P.S. Nauchandi, Meerut as also proceeding of complaint case no. 4688 of 2013 under Sections 323, 504, 356 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut pending before A.C.J.M. Court No.4, Meerut.

¶8

Heard Shri Radhey Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It appears that applicants were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2019 in Computer No. 4003497 of 2015, case crime no. 204 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and 4 D.P. Act. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred which is still pending. During pendency of appeal, matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre at District Court and parties settled the dispute and one application was moved before the lower appellate Court to decide the matter on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties which was rejected with the observations that the offences levelled in the matter were not compoundable and do not come under the purview of provisions of Section 320 IPC. Referring to law laid down by the Apex Court in Arvind Barsaul Etc Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 LawSut(SC) 2182 it is submitted that in the similar circumstances prayer made by the accused person was refused by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Parties approached Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal, which was disposed of and entire proceeding of criminal case was quashed on the basis of settlement entered into between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since in this matter parties have settled their disputes amicably, the proceedings of the aforesaid case also be quashed in view of 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 have been settled, the opposite party has no objection if the conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicants vide order dated 18.2.2019 is set aside. In this regard, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also referred to the averments made in the joint affidavit. It is also submitted that it is a matrimonial dispute and conditions agreed upon by the parties have also been fulfilled.

¶11

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record including the compromise and joint affidavit and also the law laid down in the aforesaid case laws.

¶12

In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-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 disputes and it is not related to a heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.

¶13

Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled and parties have decided to part their ways, 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 is allowed and following order is passed:

¶15

(i). The criminal appeal no. 28 of 2019 pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. XII, Meerut is decided / disposed of in terms of compromise entered into between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre at District Court concerned AND conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicants vide order dated 18.2.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in criminal case no. 3447 of 2017, arising out of case crime no. 204 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut is set-aside / quashed. Applicants are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and 4 D.P. Act.

¶16

(ii). Entire proceeding of complaint case no. 1403 of 2016 under Section 420 IPC pending before A.C.J.M., Court No.4, Meerut, P.S. Nauchandi, Meerut as also proceeding of complaint case no. 4688 of 2013 under Sections 323, 504, 356 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut pending before A.C.J.M. Court No.4, Meerut are quashed.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.11.2019 safi

Sanjay Sangwan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Sangwan and 2 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

Abdul Qadir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shravan Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Mahaveer Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Baboo Ram and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishtiaq Ahmad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another