Allowed

Abdul Raheem @ Abbu and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2021A482/42471/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute. Relying on a compromise dated 22.09.2021 and settled legal principles, the court held that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Complaint Case No.1352/9 of 2016 are set aside.

Abdul Raheem @ Abbu and 8 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42471 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Raheem @ Abbu And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1352/9 of 2016 (Old Case No.8010/9 of 2015) (Smt. Shamsheeda Vs. Abdul Raheem @ Abbu & others), under Sections- 147, 323, 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Jansath, DistrictMuzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case has been lodged against the applicant no. 1 and his other family members but that no real criminal offence had actually occurred. It is thus submitted that the present criminal prosecution has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties, with passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences.He further submits, at present, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charge against the applicants.

¶8

Sri , learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

In view of the fact that the husband and wife do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 22.09.2021, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶10

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil

¶11

Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another ), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶12

The present application is accordingly allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 9.11.2021 shiv

Abdul Raheem @ Abbu and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Raheem @ Abbu and 8 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anurag Bajpai and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Dr. Mukut Nath Verma Vs State of Up and 11 Others

Ruby Fatima Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashok Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Waseem and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another