The High Court, noting a successful settlement between parties via mediation, allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and an impugned notice/order.
The proceedings and impugned notice/order dated 09.04.2014 in the domestic violence case are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 91 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17605 of 2014
Applicant :- Jagat Singh And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- G.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Navin Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Learned counsel for the applicants is not present. Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State is present.
The matter is thus being decided finally on the basis of records with the assistance of learned State Counsel.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 748 of 2014 (Smt. Vineeta Vs. Jagat Singh and others), under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi as well as to quash the impugned notice / order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Jhansi. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application.
The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 16.05.2014 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.
As per report of Mediation Centre dated 26.09.2014 the parties have entered into settlement dated 26.09.2014 and have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.
From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 26.09.2014 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising out in the present matter. The reference of the present case is in para no. 6 (e) of the final settlement between the parties so drawn before the Mediation Centre where they have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.
The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.
From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.
The present application is allowed.
The proceedings as well as impugned notice / order dated 09.04.2014 in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks from today.
Order Date :- 8.8.2022 AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.08.11 14:13:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should be allowed to quash the domestic violence case.
Whether the quashing is appropriate given the settlement arrived at through mediation between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherFollowed¶11
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationFollowed¶11
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersFollowed¶11
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶11
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherFollowed¶11
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278
Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and anotherFollowed¶11
Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagat Singh And 2 Ors
State of U.P.
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
