Dismissed

Rupendra @ Sunil Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2021A482/10748/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of domestic violence proceedings, the High Court held that the matter did not qualify for quashing due to lack of merits and potential for legitimate prosecution, rejecting arguments based on payment of consideration during prior mediation.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed at admission stage.

Rupendra @ Sunil Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10748 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rupendra @ Sunil Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants filed a supplementary affidavit wherein he has vehemently argued regarding the order sheet dated 25.11.2014 that the learned court has referred the matter to the Mediation Centre and after mediation it was decided that the parties shall start to live together and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the respondent no. 2 in view of the said mediation proceedings. The said amount has been paid and the order sheet also reveals that the said amount has been paid to opposite party no. 2 but despite the payment, she has refused to live with her husband and is still proceeding under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC.

¶7

The said payment of Rs. 50,000/- is a statement of fact leading to merits of the case and the conduct of the opposite party no. 2 and the applicant herein. The said fact cannot be adjudicated and seen into by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court has to only look into the matter. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked as follows:-

¶8

i) To give effect to any order under the Code.

¶9

ii) To prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶10

iii) Otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

¶11

"Ex debito justitae" to do real and substantial justice for the administration of justice alone the Court exists. The aforesaid law has been settled in AIR 2005 SC 4135 (State of Punjab vs. Kasturi Lal and others).

¶12

The inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution.

¶13

The matter does not fall within the said category.

¶14

The application is found devoid of merits and is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.12.2021 Shalini

Rupendra @ Sunil Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupendra @ Sunil Kumar 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

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ghunna Halwai @ Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushkar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajat Singh Chauhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another