Allowed

Susheel and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2020A482/18735/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed the charge sheet under Sections 498-A IPC and the D. P. Act against the applicants, who are parents of the accused husband, finding that the domestic disputes were settled and continuing proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings arising out of charge sheet no. 232 of 2011 dated 18.11.2011 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act are quashed.

Susheel and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18735 of 2012

¶3

Applicant :- Susheel And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.A.Imam,Harindra Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Chandra Shekhar Mishra,Daya Shanker Pandey,Ramesh Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

List revised. None present for the opposite party no. 2 nor counter affidavit is on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A.

¶7

On the request of learned counsel for the parties the matter is being decided finally.

¶8

Present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet no. 232 of 2011 dated 18.11.2011 arising out of case crime no. 1592 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Loni, district Ghaziabad. Further prayer has been made to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that on 28.5.2013 prayer made in respect of the husband applicant no. 1 was refused and he was directed to face trial. It is also argued that during trial dispute between both the parties (husband and wife) was settled which is clear from the supplementary affidavit and the documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit. It is further argued that application under Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act (annexure no. SA-1) has also been allowed. Both the parties are living separately. Proceedings started by the opposite party no. 2 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has also been withdrawn by her. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. They are parent of the husband, applicant no. 1. Continuation of the aforesaid criminal case will be an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the applicants further referred to the documents annexed with the supplementary affidavit as well as the contents of the FIR and argued that no prima facie case has been made out against the applicants. At this juncture learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U. P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464 . Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has argued that although husband and wife have decided to live separately but prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶11

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

¶12

As is evident from the record the disputes pending between the parties have been decided. It is also clear that husband and wife have decided to live separately. Proceedings pending under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has also been decided on the basis of compromise. Applicants are parents of the husband of girl concerned. Keeping in view the role assigned to them in the FIR as well as evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (Supra) in the opinion of the court proceedings of the aforesaid case against the applicants will be an abuse of process of law. Thus the application having substance is liable to be allowed. Application is hereby allowed.

¶13

The entire proceedings arising out through the charge sheet no. 232 of 2011 dated 18.11.2011 relating to case crime no. 1592 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Loni, district Ghaziabad against the applicants are quashed.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.1.2020

¶15

Sachdeva

Susheel and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheel and 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

Hemant @ Gaurav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailesh Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Vimlawati Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Umar Daraz and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sujeet Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another