Allowed

Inayat-Ullah and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2019A482/6243/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings involving matrimonial allegations. The judgment recorded that a compromise had been entered into and a settlement deed executed, with the complainant agreeing to drop the case, holding that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1877 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act are hereby quashed.

Inayat-Ullah and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6243 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Inayat-Ullah And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Anuj Kumar Tripathi, holding brief of Shri A.C. Srivastava learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the criminal proceeding of the criminal case No. 1877 of 2017, State Vs. Inayatullah and others, arising out of case crime no. 0524 of 2016, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act. P.S. Bhawaniganj, District Siddharth Nagar pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a compromise has already been entered into between the applicants and opposite party no. 2 and settlement deed has been executed, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-I to the counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the applicant no.1 has paid to Rs. 1,75,000/- to the O.P. No.2. It is further stated that O.P. No.2 has no concern with the applicants and she does not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings, as such, entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶8

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. has reiterated that the dispute has already been compromised between the parties and she does not want to further pursue the case against the applicants and she has no objection, if the proceedings are quashed.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly, the criminal proceedings of the criminal case No. 1877 of 2017, State Vs. Inayatullah and others, arising out of case crime no. 0524 of 2016, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act. P.S. Bhawaniganj, District Siddharth Nagar pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar are hereby quashed.

¶18

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.11.2019 R

Inayat-Ullah and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inayat-Ullah and 4 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

Suraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Lal and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sayeed Uddin Faridi @ Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Goyal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Bind and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another