A single judge allowed Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash complaint case. Parties settled matrimonial dispute; continuation deemed abuse of process. Criminal proceedings under 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and D.P. Act quashed.
Proceedings of Complaint Case No. 625 of 2012 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2290 of 2020
Applicant :- Sameer And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indra Pal Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Indra Pal Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case. 625 of 2012 (Smt. Payal Vs. Sameer & Others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationChhibaramau, District-Kannauj, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chhibaramau.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the dispute between the parties is matrimonial dispute. Through good offices of certain well-meaning persons the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and have mutually compromised in the matter. The complainant/opposite party no.2 of this case is not interested to pursue the matter against the applicants. According to the counsel, there is no dispute left out any more in between the parties and they wish no more litigation in between them. It has further been submitted that the parties want to settle their dispute as they have entered into compromise as such continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants is nothing but abuse of the process of law.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. Counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 stating therein that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have mutually settled their dispute and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute against the applicants in the aforesaid case. It has also been stated that both the parties have been amicably settled as such the opposite party no.2 does not want to press the aforesaid criminal case.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
In the aforesaid judgments, 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. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case. 625 of 2012 (Smt. Payal Vs. Sameer & Others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationChhibaramau, District-Kannauj, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chhibaramau, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.1.2020 JK Yadav
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. should be quashed upon settlement.
Whether a compromise between parties prevents abuse of process of law in matrimonial disputes.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. permits quashing of proceedings based on mutual settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and AnotherReferred¶9
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶9
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and OthersReferred¶9
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & AnotherReferred¶15
Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sameer And 4 Others
State Of U.P.And Another
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
