Allowed

Rudra Pratap Jaiswal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2022A482/20425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings regarding matrimonial discord, holding that as the dispute was mutually settled via compromise and pursued by family members, no useful purpose would be served by continuation.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the case including the charge sheet and summoning order are set aside.

Rudra Pratap Jaiswal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20425 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rudra Pratap Jaiswal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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 charge sheet dated 4.12.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 259 of 2020 (State Vs. Rudra Pratap Jaiswal and others arising out of Case Crime No. 483 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli pending in the court of C.J.M. Chandauli as well as summoning order dated 16.1.2020.

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

¶11

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

¶12

the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 15.10.2022, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶13

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.

¶14

The present application is accordingly allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 2.11.2022 RPD

¶16

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.11.03 15:52:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rudra Pratap Jaiswal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudra Pratap Jaiswal 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

Sachin Goyal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Farookh Vs State of U.P.and 4 Others

Hari Shnakr Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. AND2 Others

Suresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt. Sudha Choudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another