Allowed

Ashish Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2019A482/44087/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court quashed a charge sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case under S. 506 IPC arising from family disputes. Relying on compromise between the other parties and a hostile prosecution witness, the court held no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashed charge sheet no.01/2017, cognizance order dated 05.01.2018 and further proceedings of Case Crime No. 282 of 2017.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44087 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ashish Upadhyaya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Dwivedi,Desh Ratan Chaudhary

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet no.01/2017, dated 17.06.2017 and cognizance order dated 05.01.2018 passed by learned Magistrate as well as further proceedings of Case Crime No. 282 of 2017 arising out of misc. Case No. 06 of 2018, u/s 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Lohta, District- Varanasi pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IVth, Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is brother-in-law (Jeth) of opposite party no.2. The marriage of the applicant's younger brother, Alok Upadhaya was solemnized with the opposite party no.2. After sometime, the relations between the two became strained, therefore, the opposite party no.2 left the house of her husband and went to her parental home with her belongings on 17.04.2016. Subsequently, the opposite party no.2 has lodged several cases against her husband and all family members of her husband. In the meantime, on account of differences between the applicant's younger brother and his wife (opposite party no.2), the applicant's younger brother filed the suit bearing Suit No. 436 of 2016 before the concerned court below under Section 13(1) (A-1) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for divorce. Thereafter, an F.I.R. was lodged on 13.06.2017 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant in which the charge sheet has been submitted and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance vide dated 05.01.2018.

¶9

It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on intervention of some respective persons, the applicant's younger brother, Alok Upadhaya and opposite party no. 2 have entered into promise on 11.03.2019 and aggrieved to dissolve the marriage. Accordingly, in the compromise, the opposite party no.2 has accepted one time alimony and maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8.5 lacs and has agreed to

¶10

withdraw all the pending cases between the parties. It has further been submitted that on account of compromise entered between the two, the Suit No. 436 of 2016 filed by the applicant's younger brother for divorce was allowed vide order dated 14.03.2019 passed by Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court IInd, Family Court, Mirzapur. And also in the aforesaid order, it has been mentioned that the opposite party wants to withdraw the case against the applicant. Therefore, the proceedings of the present case has been quashed.

¶11

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :

¶12

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

¶13

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;

¶14

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;

¶15

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

¶16

In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

¶17

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 expatiated in detail.

¶18

From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the applicants' younger brother and the opposite party no.2 and not between the applicant and the opposite party no.2. It is further apparent that the applicant's younger brother and opposite party no.2 have entered into a compromise and on the basis of such compromise, the concerned court below has allowed the suit for divorce filed by the applicant's younger brother vide order dated 14.03.2019. In the aforesaid order, it has been mentioned that all the matrimonial dispute including the present case has been settled and compromised between the parties, amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such

¶19

circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the records as well as the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant regarding the compromise entered into between 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 as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶21

Accordingly, the charge sheet no.01/2017, dated 17.06.2017 and cognizance order dated 05.01.2018 passed by learned Magistrate as well as further proceedings of Case Crime No. 282 of 2017 arising out of misc. Case No. 06 of 2018, u/s 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Lohta, District- Varanasi pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IVth, Varanasi is hereby quashed.

¶22

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.12.2019 JK Yadav

Ashish Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Upadhyaya 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

Rohit Vs State of Up and Another

Chandra Bhusan Tripathi Vs State of Up and Another

Riyasat Ali @ Kaluwa and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Chand Sharma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mahangi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarnath Vs State of U.P. Another