Allowed

Anshu Kumar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2023A482/31275/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the entire proceedings of a criminal case instituted under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Hathras, India, following a verified compromise filed between the matrimonial parties, holding that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.

Anshu Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117793

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31275 of 2017

¶4

Applicant :- Anshu Kumar And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey,Amresh Bahadur Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar,Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun

¶6

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶7

The case is taken up in the revised call.

¶8

Heard Mr. Amresh Bahadur Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party, and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7 of 2017 (State Vs. Anshu Kumar and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Hathras as well as charge sheet dated 18.06.2012 whereupon learned Magistrate taken cognizance on 17.07.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2017.

¶10

On 22.08.2022, the following order was passed:-

¶11

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶12

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.7 of 2017 (State Vs. Anshu Kumar and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Hathras as well as charge sheet dated 18.06.2012.

¶13

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that through good offices of certain well-meaning persons the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and have mutually compromised in the matter

¶14

According to the counsel there is no dispute left out any more in between the parties and they wish no more litigation in between them. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that parties have already filed compromise before the court below on 02.09.2021.

¶15

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that as the opp. party

¶16

no.2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the lower court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the accused, the acquittal of the accused-applicant is now a foregone conclusion. It shall be a sheer abuse of the court's process, if the proceedings going on in the lower court are still allowed to go on further. Submission therefore is that in the wake of the inter-se compromise arrived at in between the parties, the impugned proceedings ought to be quashed.

¶17

Let compromise, if any, be filed before trial court, where it shall be verified in presence of both sides and after its verification, certified copy of compromise along with verification order of trial court concerned, be filed on record of this Court, by way of supplementary affidavit.

¶18

List this case on 30th September, 2022.

¶19

If compromise is on record of the lower court, the further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. "

¶20

In compliance of the aforesaid order, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 annexing therewith certified copy of compromise alongwith affidavit and verification report dated 02.09.2021 as Annexure No. SA-1, vide which the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties and their respective counsels.

¶21

In the supplementary affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2, it has been stated that applicant and opposite party no. 2 are living as husband and wife and no dispute remained between them. 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 also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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) 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 counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶32

Accordingly, entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7 of 2017 (State Vs. Anshu Kumar and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Hathras on the basis of compromise are hereby quashed.

¶33

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

¶34

Order Date :- 23.5.2023 Arti

¶35

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

Anshu Kumar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshu Kumar and 5 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

Harish Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devandra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hamdoshana @ Hamida Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Tyagi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Raj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mobeen @ Bhura Vs State of U.P.