Allowed

Gautam Jain and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022A482/16240/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash matrimonial proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court held that since the parties reached a mutual compromise and the dispute is of a personal nature, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Case No.50610 of 2019 filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are hereby set aside.

Gautam Jain and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16240 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Gautam Jain And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Vashisth

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. 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 entire proceedings of Case No.50610 of 2019 (Smt. Priyanka Jain Vs. Gautam Jain and others), under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S.- Sadar Bazar, District- Meerut pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Meerut on the basis of the compromise dated 14.06.2022 taken between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Hon'ble Court.

¶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.

¶8

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 and they are living together as husband and wife.

¶9

He further submits, at present, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charge against the applicants.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. In fact, in the compromise dated 14.06.2022 filed by the opposite party no. 2, she has supported the contention advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶11

Paragraph no. e of the said compromise dated 14.06.2022 reads as under :

¶12

"That it has been agreed between the parties that the cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate

¶13

steps before the Court/authority concerned."

¶14

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 14.06.2022 , therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶15

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

¶16

The present application is accordingly allowed . Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Sachin/-

¶17

Digitally signed by SACHIN TIWARI Date: 2022.12.21 15:20:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gautam Jain and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Jain and 2 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

Shivam Goyal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nakshey Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mustakim @ Pappu and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ankur Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Vilas Dwivedi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another