Disposed

Purnima Chandra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2021A482/1236/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute, the High Court held that disputed facts regarding an alleged compromise cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The Court directed the applicants to approach the Trial Court for quashing of the compoundable offences and disposed of the application without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; no opinion expressed on merits; applicant directed to approach Trial Court for quashing based on compromise.

Purnima Chandra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1236 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Purnima Chandra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar,A Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 381 of 2019 ( Bhushan Kumar Vs. Purnima Chandra and Others) under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Kydganj, District- Prayagraj as well as summoning order dated 5.11.2019, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth Allahabad, (Prayagraj).

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that it is a matrimonial dispute and during pendency of the application parties have amicably settled their dispute in terms of law laid down under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act (Annexure No. SCA-2 to the application). It is further submitted that offences are compoundable and thus the proceedings of the present case may be quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that the offences are compoundable and the Trial Court itself is competent to quash the proceedings.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that prima facie cognizable case is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CR.P.C.

¶9

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, since the offence are compoundable, the applicants are at liberty to move appropriate application for the relief sought herein before the Trial Court, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by the Trial Court as expeditiously as

¶10

possible.

¶11

Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent Court below is to act in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.9.2021 S.Verma

Purnima Chandra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purnima Chandra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahm Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarveen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Himanshu Agrawal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another