Quashed

Premlata and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2020A482/18487/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order of the Lower Court and further proceedings in a criminal case involving domestic violence offences, relying on a compromise already effected between the wife and her husband in a prior application.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Ghaziabad and further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2071 of 2013 are quashed.

Premlata and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18487 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Premlata And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Srivastava,Gagan Mehta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pratik J. Nagar

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Ghaziabad as well as further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2071 of 2013 (State Vs. Vineet and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Ghaziabad.

¶6

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the entire proceeding going on against the applicants in this case has arisen out of the same and one Criminal Case No. 2071 of 2013 (State Vs. Venieet and others), Case Crime No. 159 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad and the entire criminal proceedings of the said case have been quashed today, vide judgment and order dated 09.12.2020, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17513 of 2020 (Shri Veneet Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another) on the basis of the compromise entered into between both the parties (applicant and opposite party No. 2, husband and wife) and the said application has been allowed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the applicants that the proceedings in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are between the applicants and the opposite party No. 2. The applicants are father-in-aw and mother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 and the criminal proceedings going on against the applicants in this case also deserve to be quashed in view of the compromise entered into between the parties in the Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.17513 of 2020 (Shri Veneet Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another).

¶7

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has not objection to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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 has been explained in detail.

¶15

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.

¶16

Accordingly, the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Ghaziabad as well as further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2071 of 2013 (State Vs. Vineet and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Ghaziabad are, hereby, quashed.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 9.12.2020 LBY

Premlata and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premlata and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Furkan Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Arif Khan Vs State of U.P.

Chaman Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Omkarnath Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.