Allowed

Mahesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2023A482/10067/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to quash criminal proceedings under sections 498-A IPC and others arising from a matrimonial dispute. The Court held that since parties settled amicably and objects, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process causing unnecessary harassment.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in Case No. 158 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

Mahesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116591

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10067 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mahesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

This application has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 158 of 2022, State vs. Mahesh and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 756 of 2018), under Sections 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Bareilly.

¶7

In compliance with the order dated 17.05.2023, a report dated 22.05.2023 has been received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bareilly, verifying the compromise dated 01.05.2023. Along with a copy of the compromise, the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate, verifying the compromise has also been annexed. A perusal of the terms of the compromise shows that parties do not want to prosecute the impugned proceedings, any further. They have settled all the differences amicably.

¶8

Looking to the fact that the offence involved arises out of a matrimonial dispute that has no wide social impact, there can be no objection possibly by the State, if proceedings being quashed.

¶9

Learned AGA does not object to the proceedings being quashed given the nature of the offence involved.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through

¶11

the records, this Court finds that given the circumstances of parties, it is evident that they do not want to litigate on any score with regard to issues that have arisen between them on account of a matrimonial discord. In the circumstances, permitting these proceedings to continue, in our opinion, would be an abuse of process of Court because ex facie it would not lead to any fruitful result. Rather, it would be wastage of time, resources and energy, besides avoidable harassment of parties. It is necessary, therefore, that the impugned proceedings be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶12

In the result this application succeeds and is allowed .

¶13

Proceedings against the applicants in Case No. 158 of 2022, State vs. Mahesh and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 756 of 2018), under Sections 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

¶14

An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly that all proceedings in Case No. 158 of 2022, State vs. Mahesh and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 756 of 2018), under Sections 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Bareilly stand quashed under orders of this Court.

¶15

This part of the order shall be caused to be carried out in the records of the police station concerned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly

¶16

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, through the learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly and the S.H.O. of P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Deepak

¶18

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Garg and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bal Kisahan Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Chand and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nand Kishore Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarun Kuamr Shukla Vs State of U.P.