Allowed

Satveer Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023A482/26764/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings including charge-sheet and summoning order under Section 482 CrPC in a matrimonial dispute involving Sections 498-A and Dowry Prohibition Act, as the parties had settled their differences, entered a mutual consent divorce, and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet dated 04.03.2012, summoning order dated 25.04.2012, and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 519 of 2012 were quashed.

Satveer Singh and 2 Others Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26764 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satveer Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devendra Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Deepak Rana, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Devendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Charge-sheet dated 04.03.2012, summoning order dated 25.04.2012 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 519 of 2012 (State Vs. Satveer and others), arising our of Case Crime No. 965 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.

¶8

In the supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant, it is stated that the matter between husband and wife had already been settled amicably in Divorce Case No. 197 of 2012 (Smt. Jyoti Vs. Pawan @ Kukkan) on the basis of compromise settlement and statement of opposite party no.2, namely Jyoti has been recorded as P.W.1 in which she has stated that divorce has been entered between the husband and wife and she has also obtain compensation of Rs.2,70,000/-, therefore, she does not want to prosecute any criminal case against her husband namely Pawan @ Kukkan and both will not be able to live as husband and wife and have decided to part ways by getting divorce from each other on the basis of mutual consent.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were matrimonial in nature. Applicant no.2 and opposite party no.2 are husband and wife respectively. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on

¶10

account of any real occurrence as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. At present, the parties have resolved their differences and made peace and applicant no.2 and opposite party no.2. There is no possibility left between them to live together as husband and wife. Both the parties have decided to part ways by getting divorce from each other on the basis of mutual consent.

¶11

On an earlier occasion, the dispute between the parties has been referred to the Mediation Centre of the court below where they have arrived at a settlement vide order of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Hapur dated 25.05.2023. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, applicant no.2 and opposite party no.2 will not be able to live as husband and wife and have decided to part ways by getting divorce from each other on the basis of mutual consent. Certified copy of the order dated 25.05.2013 passed in Case No. 197 of 2012 is annexed as annexure No. 5 to the application. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.

¶12

On the instructions received, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He also submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶20

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

¶21

Accordingly, the proceedings of Charge-sheet dated 04.03.2012, summoning order dated 25.04.2012 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 519 of 2012 (State Vs. Satveer and others), arising our of Case Crime No. 965 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, are hereby quashed.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 27.2.2023 Abhishek Singh

¶24

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

Satveer Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satveer Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariram and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Adil Shamim and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another