Allowed

Dharmaveer and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2021A482/4929/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application considered the petition of an applicant to quash criminal proceedings alleging matrimonial discord. The court noted an amicable settlement and payment by the applicant. It held that no useful purpose would be achieved by continuing the proceedings and quashed the pending criminal complaint.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 12 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act.

Dharmaveer and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4929 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmaveer And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Paritosh Sukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit filed today in Court on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings as well as summoning order dated 18.2.2020 passed in complaint case no. 12 of 2019, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Mahila Thana, District Aligarh pending in the court of A.C.J.M, Court No.7 District Aligarh in terms of compromise deed dated 12.1.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that O.P.2 is the wife of applicant No. 1 and on account of matrimonial discord, the present criminal proceeding has been initiated against the applicants, however, subsequently with the intervention of respected members of both family , the applicants and the O.P. 2 have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and now they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that pursuant to the said settlement agreement, the applicant has paid a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- to O.P. No.2 in lieu of full and final settlement of all her claims and dues. He has further submitted that in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties entire proceeding be quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 has also appeared and filed an affidavit on behalf of O.P. No.2 and in para 3,4 and 5 it has been stated that she has entered into compromise without any coercion or threat and has acknowledged that a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- has already been received by her in view of all her claims and dues. In para 6 of the said affidavit she has stated that she does want to further pursue the criminal proceeding against the applicants and she has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed.

¶11

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶12

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶13

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶14

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1

¶15

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶16

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶17

wherein 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. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶18

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 case.

¶19

Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 12 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act P.S. Mahila Thana, District Aligarh pending in the court of A.C.J.M, Court No. 7, District Aligarh, are hereby quashed.

¶20

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.11.2021 R

Dharmaveer and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmaveer and 5 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

Swami Sharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rajesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Singh Alias Brijesh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tejram @ Tejpal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another