Allowed

Shivam Goyal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2022A482/6581/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings instituted under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 420 IPC and sections 3/4 of D.P. Act based on a compromise filed by the parties, holding it to be a personal family dispute settled by mutual consent.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of case crime No. 354 of 2021 set aside and application allowed in view of the compromise.

Shivam Goyal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6581 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shivam Goyal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh,Lalit Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Anand Agarwal,Shreya Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of the complaint dated 16.3.2022 in Case crime No. 354 of 2021 (State Vs. Shivam Goyal and others), under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406,420, 354,377 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bareilly pending in the court of C.J.M.Bareilly on the basis of compromise.

¶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

Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 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 the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in

¶12

view of the compromise dated 6/7/2022, 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 :- 16.12.2022 RPD

¶16

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.12.19 16:46:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivam Goyal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Goyal 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haji Anees and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nakshey Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Raj Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another