Quashed

Manoj Pandey and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2019A482/44625/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and others pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, relying on the settlement between the parties and the acquittal of the appellant husband in the earlier trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3834 of 2013 are quashed.

Manoj Pandey and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44625 of 2014 Applicant :- Manoj Pandey And 4 Ors. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Nirbhay Srivastava,Ram Bahadur Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ram Bahadur Singh,learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 3834 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are father-inlaw, mother-in-law and other in-laws of opposite party no.2. It is stated that there was no stay order in respect of husband of the opposite party no.2 and he faced trial in which opposite party no.2 did not support the prosecution case and he has been duly acquitted by trial court in Case No.3834 of 2013, certified copy of the judgement dated 21.04.2018 has been annexed as SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶6

Learned counsel for the parties have stated that so far as other applicants are concerned, they are relatives of husband of opposite party no.2,therefore, their case stands on better footing. In view of the fact that the husband and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute in which the husband of the opposite party no.2 has been acquitted and if the proceedings of the case is quashed in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. , the opposite party no.2 has no objection.

¶7

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averment made in the complaint which transpires that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute amicably.

¶8

In view of law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab and another i n Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24 September, 2012, the aforesaid proceeding is hereby quashed. Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., accordingly stands allowed.

¶9

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.

¶10

Order Date :- 26.11.2019/MN/-

Manoj Pandey and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Pandey and 4 Ors. 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

Dineysh Agrawaal D.K. Agrawal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Javed Mehdi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Baba @ Ashok Panth Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna Kumar Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Rahman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Angad Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another