Allowed

Anuj Bharti and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023A482/22181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against applicants under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and D.P. Act following a verified compromise between the parties, citing harmonious relations and Apex Court precedents allowing compromise in cognizable offences arising from matrimonial discord.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of chargesheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings filed against the applicants.

Anuj Bharti and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172395

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22181 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Anuj Bharti And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaskar Bhadra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Singh Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Dinesh Singh Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the records.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash impugned chargesheet dated 15.02.2022 and cognizance order dated 16.04.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 258 of 2022 (State Vs. Anuj Bharti and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 193 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323 & 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Bareilly.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1 and applicant nos. 2 and 5 are parents-in-law, applicant no.3 is brother-in-law and applicant no.4 is sister-in-law (Jethani) of opposite party no.2.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, present criminal case has been instituted against the applicants by opposite party no.2, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the families, applicants and the opposite party no.2 have amicably and genuinely settled all their disputes and differences and now they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of this Court to a compromise application filed by opposite party no.2 supported by an affidavit dated 16.06.2022, a copy of which has been annexed as

¶11

Annexure-4 to his application.

¶12

This Court vide its order dated 28.07.2022 had directed the parties to appear before the court below and file a copy of the said compromise application, which shall be verified by the court below and after verification of the compromise, a report be submitted to this Court.

¶13

Pursuant to the said order dated 28.07.2022, the parties appeared before the court below and in their presence, after due verification of the contents of the compromise made between the parties, an order dated 30.08.2022 has been passed by the court below verifying the said compromise.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said compromise as well as report of the court below and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, entire proceedings against the applicants be quashed.

¶15

Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶16

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:-

¶17

(1). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶18

(2). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677].

¶19

(3). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Wherein 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278] , in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶24

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 258 of 2022 (State Vs. Anuj Bharti and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 193 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323 & 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial MagistrateIIIrd, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

¶25

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Subham

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anuj Bharti and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Bharti and 4 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

Ujjawal Singh @ Vicky and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madhubala Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Neha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Kayum Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suneel Kumar Arora and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others