Allowed

Siddharth Jain and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2022A482/18341/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute, the Court held that since the parties had reconciled and entered into a compromise, quashing the proceedings was necessary to serve the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings relating to the aforementioned case including the charge sheet and summoning orders have been quashed.

Siddharth Jain and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18341 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Siddharth Jain And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Somendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 24.01.2019 as well as summoning order dated 06.02.2016 and 17.02.2020 under section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapur arising out of case crime no.1336 of 2018 registered as case no.68 of 2019 pending before Civil Judge (J.D.)/ J.M./ FTC, Hapur.

¶7

It is submitted that during the course of proceedings, the parties have reconciled their differences and the compromise has been entered between them which has been produced in writing. The opposite party no.2 has acknowledged the aforesaid facts. Vide order dated 13.10.2022 parties were directed to appear before the court below and permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise deed. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the parties have appeared before the court below and the court below has verified the compromise and have submitted its report vide letter/ report dated 07.11.2022. Both the parties are agreed that in terms of the compromise the proceeding of case be terminated and the entire proceedings be quashed.

¶8

Matter is related to matrimonial dispute and both the parties have entered into amicable settlement. The fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsels for the parties.

¶9

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed that: (SCC p.340, para 58).

¶10

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in

¶11

futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."

¶12

Where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. [Vide: Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692].

¶13

Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed .

¶14

The entire proceedings relating to aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

¶15

The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.

¶16

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order download from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶17

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

Order Date :- 29.11.2022 C. MANI

¶19

Digitally signed by CHANDRAMANI VERMA Date: 2022.11.30 09:56:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Siddharth Jain and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Jain and 3 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

Farman and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Narendra Makania Alias Bobby Vs State of U.P. and Another

Najim and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Somvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vaibhav Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another