Application under Section 482 CrPC filed by complainant to quash criminal proceedings after parties reached a compromise during matrimonial discord, with court granting quashing based on absence of utility in prolonging cases.
Entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 9436 of 2017 pending in Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth, Moradabad, quashed.
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. - 8258 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Anchal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ratnesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamla Shanker Pathak
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Kamla Shanker Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 6 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 05.07.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth, Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 9436 of 2017 (Smt. Anchal Vs. Sajjan Jain and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC against Sajjan Jain, Smt. Aadesh Jain, Sugandha, Shailendra Agarwal (opposite party nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 respectively), under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC against Sagar Jain (opposite party no. 3), Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant Smt. Anchal is the complainant in the present case and she is wife of opposite party no.2 Sajjan Jain. On account of matrimonial discord, present complaint case was instituted against the opposite parties, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the families, they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and a compromise was entered into between them, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the present application.
Pursuant to the order dated 27.06.2022 passed by this Court, parties were directed to appear before the court below for verification of the compromise made between the parties.
Consequent to the said order, they had appeared before the court below and an affidavit has been filed by the applicant Smt. Anchal, clearly stating therein that now, she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings and has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that in view of the above compromise made between the
parties, entire proceedings against the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 be quashed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also made a statement at the bar that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and a compromise was entered into between them, which has already been verified by the court below and now, no fruitful purpose would be served in prolonging the proceedings, as such, the same be quashed.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , wherein Hon'ble 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, 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 learned counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 9436 of 2017 (Smt. Anchal Vs. Sajjan Jain and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC against Sajjan Jain, Smt. Aadesh Jain, Sugandha, Shailendra Agarwal (opposite party nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 respectively), under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC against Sagar Jain (opposite party no. 3), Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth, Moradabad, are hereby quashed.
This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 13.12.2022 Nadim
Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.12.14 11:50:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings instituted for matrimonial disputes can be quashed after a compromise between parties.
Whether a valid compromise qualifies for quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC despite non-cognizable nature of complaints.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶13
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¶13
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Anchal
State Of U.P.
Sajjan Jain
Smt. Aadesh Jain
Sugandha
Shailendra Agarwal
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
