Allowed

Anshuman Garg and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2023A482/17309/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application seeks to quash criminal proceedings based on a verified compromise. The High Court held that since the parties settled their dispute and the compromise was verified by the trial court, the proceedings served no useful purpose and were accordingly quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in case no. 6080 of 2016 against the applicants under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed.

Anshuman Garg and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17309 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Anshuman Garg And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava,Vishnu Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶6

Heard Vishnu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the proceedings of complaint case no. 6080 of 2016 (Smt. Sheetu Vs. Anshuman and another), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. T. P. Nagar, District Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Meerut in terms of the compromise dated 27.11.2019.

¶8

On 05.02.2020, the following order was passed:-

¶9

"Vakalatnama filed by Sri Vishnu Kumar, learned Advocate on behalf of the applicants in the Registry is not on record.

¶10

Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.

¶11

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicants as well as supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 are taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A.

¶13

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 6080 of 2016 (Smt. Sheetu Vs. Anshuman

¶14

and another), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. T. P. Nagar, District Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Meerut in terms of the compromise dated 27.11.2019.

¶15

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 27.11.2019. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. A copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case can be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶16

List this matter on 27.03.2020 before the appropriate Bench.

¶17

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 19.02.2020 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

¶18

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise annexed as AnnexureSA-1 to the supplementary affidavit to the court concerned within three days. Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.

¶19

Till the next date of listing no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants. "

¶20

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the court concerned vide order dated 19.02.2022 has verified the compromise in the presence of parties and their respective counsels. Certified copy of the aforesaid order has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the

¶23

opposite party also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶24

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶25

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶26

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677 ,

¶27

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶28

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶29

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶30

In the aforesaid judgments, the 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. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful

¶32

purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶33

Accordingly, the proceedings of complaint case no. 6080 of 2016 (Smt. Sheetu Vs. Anshuman and another), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. T. P. Nagar, District Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Meerut on the basis of compromise are hereby quashed.

¶34

The application is, accordingly, allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Order Date :- 29.3.2023 Arti

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anshuman Garg and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshuman Garg and Another 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

Mohd Imran and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ravindra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Udaar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rinku Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another