Allowed

Vibhor Mehrotra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2022A482/2442/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed to quash criminal proceedings arising from domestic matters. The court found that the parties had amicably settled their dispute through the court's mediation centre. Consequently, the quashing application was allowed and the proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings, charge sheet, cognizance order, and summoning order were quashed. The Family Court, Meerut was directed to decide the pending divorce case within 60 days.

Vibhor Mehrotra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2442 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vibhor Mehrotra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶7

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 in charge sheet no. 254 of 2019, dated 4.12.2019 as well as cognizance order and summoning order dated 21.10.2020 in Case No. 13358 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 491 of 2019, State vs. Vibhor Mehrotra and others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Aligarh, and with the further prayer to stay the entire proceedings of aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application.

¶8

The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 09.2.2021 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.

¶9

As per report of Mediation Centre dated 2.6.2022 the parties have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them in view of interim settlement agreement dated 19.5.2022.

¶10

As per the office report dated 17.8.2022, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record which states that mediation between the parties is successful.

¶11

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 2.6.2022 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising in the present matter. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para- 7 (g) of the said mediation report.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant states that a case under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the Family Court, Meerut as Case No. 1350 of 2022. Learned counsel assures that the applicants shall abide by all the

¶13

terms and conditions of settlement agreement arrived at between the parties before the mediation centre of this Court and shall fully co-operate with expeditious disposal of the said case pending before the Family Court, Meerut. He prayed that a direction for expeditious disposal of the same be given.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 applicant(s).

¶16

The present application is allowed.

¶17

The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as summoning order passed in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶18

However the Family Court, Meerut is directed to expedite the hearing of Case No. 1350 of 2022 and decide the same within 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks from today.

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 17.8.2022 Naresh

¶22

Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR Date: 2022.08.18 18:07:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vibhor Mehrotra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vibhor Mehrotra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarthak Goel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ghanshyam Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Sonkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakti Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Firoj Ahamad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another