Allowed

Sandeep Sahu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 May 2023A482/11060/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and D.P. Act, 1961, based on a verified compromise deed wherein husband and wife settled to live separately. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding quashability of matrimonial cases. Deposit amount is directed to be released.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, 1961 quashed; deposit amount directed to be released to opposite party 2.

Sandeep Sahu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11060 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Sahu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Sahu,Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 1652 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 529 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323,504,506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, 1961, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi including the charge sheet and the cognizance order on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶7

Pursuant to earlier order of this court, both the parties i.e. the husband (applicant) and wife (opposite party no.2) are present before this court and they have been duly identified by their counsel.

¶8

Both the parties submitted that they do not want to live together as husband and wife and wants to live separately and in this regard they have settled their dispute to live separately and filed compromise before the court below. Thereafter, this Court, vide order 19.12.2022, has sent the said compromise deed to the trial court with a direction to get the same verified and submit a report.

¶9

Learned counsel for the parties have not disputed the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they have filed compromise deed and the same has been verified by the trial Court, vide order dated 13.03.2023, kept on record of this case.

¶10

In the present case, the sections involved are Sections 498-A, 323,504,506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, 1961.

¶11

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the court below has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed and submitted his report dated 13.03.2023 to the extent that the parties and contents of the compromise deed are genuine and they have entered into the compromise by free-will.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case.

¶13

Therefore, in view of the above and considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya

¶14

Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the entire proceedings of Case No. 1652 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 529 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323,504,506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, 1961, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi are hereby quashed.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. However, it is further directed that the amount deposited pursuant to earlier order of this court dated 19.12.2022 before the Mediation Centre of this Court shall be released in favour of opposite party no. 2 forthwith.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Sahu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sahu and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Saqib and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Rohit @ Nasir and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yograj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another