Allowed

Smt. Renu Dubey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2019CRLP/6282/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and D.P. Act based on amicable settlement via mutual divorce and permanent alimony. Invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. citing Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in matrimonial disputes.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Complaint Case No.476 of 2012 and consequential proceedings under Section 245 Cr.P.C. were quashed.

Smt. Renu Dubey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6282 of 2015

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Renu Dubey And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 10.2.2015 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no.7, Varanasi and order dated 4.4.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1, under section 245 Cr.P.C. as well as consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No.476 of 2012 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.. & D.P. Act, Police Station Choplapur, District Varanasi.

¶7

Vide earlier order of this Court dated 20.3.2015 the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The report of the Mediation Centre dated 27.8.2015 is on record which shows that both the parties have decided to take mutual divorce on the condition of a permanent alimony of Rs.7,25,000/-, which shall be given by the husband to the wife in the form of a demand draft in the name of Smt. Geeta Pandey.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have now entered into an amicable settlement, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.

¶9

The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

In the aforesaid cases, 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

¶16

has been explained in detail.

¶17

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 complaint case.

¶18

In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 18.11.2019 Dev/-

Smt. Renu Dubey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Renu Dubey and 3 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

Poonam Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Poonam Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Manisha Omar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Sagira and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Another

Devendra Kumar Garg Vs State of U.P. Thru Home Secy. and Another