Allowed

Harendra Sharma and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023A482/28808/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an applicant and family members for matrimonial offences. The court noted a genuine settlement between parties, restored living arrangements, and absence of grievances, rendering further proceedings useless.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2187 of 2021 are quashed.

Harendra Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181986

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28808 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Harendra Sharma And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Santosh Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Order on Impleadment Application.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

Impleadment application, filed today in Court, is taken on record.

¶8

Office is directed to allot the number of said impleadment application.

¶9

Impleadment application stands allowed.

¶10

Let Rinki, wife of Harendra Sharma, daughter of Sanjai Sharma be impleaded as opposite party no.3, during the course of the day.

¶11

Order on Application U/s 482 CrPC.

¶12

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2187 of 2021 (State Vs. Rajeshwari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 149 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that opposite party no.3 is the wife of applicant no.1 and other applicants are his family members and on account of matrimonial discord, the instant criminal case was instituted against the applicants, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the family and the society, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their all disputes and differences and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of the Court to the settlement agreement dated 13.06.2023 drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to this application.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that pursuant to the said settlement agreement, the parties have restored their relationship and has been living together for the last one and a half year along with her husband and minor child and now, she has no grievance against the applicants.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said settlement agreement, the entire proceedings be quashed in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties.

¶17

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 has also appeared and has acknowledged the said settlement agreement and has stated, on instructions, that opposite party no.3 has been living with her husband for the last one and a half year along with her minor child and now, she does not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicants and she has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(4). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303. (5). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶23

Wherein Hon'ble 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.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as

¶25

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. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2187 of 2021 (State Vs. Rajeshwari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 149 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, are hereby quashed.

¶26

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 20.9.2023 Nadim

¶28

Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harendra Sharma and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Sharma and 6 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

Murtaza Saleem @ Ali Murtaza Saleem and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secratery Home and Another

Deepak Mahrotra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Tarun and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harsh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another