In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed criminal proceedings instituted underSections 498-A and others due to the parties having reached a settlement and decided to live separately.
The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3290 of 2022 arising out of Crime No. 58 of 2021 are quashed. No order as to costs.
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. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20917 of 2022
Applicant :- Noor Mohammad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivajee Singh Sisodiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Babu Dubey
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Sri Shiv Babu Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 6.10.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 5.4.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3290 of 2022 (State Vs. Noor Mohammad & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant No. 1 is the husband of the opposite party No. 2 and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are her father in-law and mother in-law. Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, the instant criminal case was instituted against the applicants, however with the intervention of the respected members of both the families, they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and have decided to live separately.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that a settlement-agreement dated 5.7.2022 was also drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. SCA-2 to the short counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that pursuant to the order dated 2.11.2022, both the parties have appeared before the court below and filed the compromise made between them, which has been duly verified by the court. The Court after verifying the said compromise had submitted a report dated 15.11.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the compromise made between the parties, the entire proceedings be quashed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also appeared and has drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and in paragraph- 6 of the affidavit, it has been stated that parties have entered into a compromise and she does not want to further pursue the said criminal proceeding and has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed against the applicants.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of 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. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
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.
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.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3290 of 2022 (State Vs. Noor Mohammad & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.
This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.12.2022 KU
Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.12.21 15:55:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the entire criminal proceedings be quashed in pursuance of the settlement reached between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶12
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 InvestigationReferred¶12
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersReferred¶12
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1. · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶12
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶12
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466. · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶18
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Noor Mohammad And 2 Others
State of U.P.
Opposite party 2
Rajiv Gupta
Kalim Uddin Siddiqui
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
