Allowed

Sandeep Chaturvedi and 2 Othesr v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023A482/32616/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted under sections 498-A and others IPC. Applicants cited a settlement agreement resolving disputes. Court held no useful purpose would be served by prolonging proceedings. Quashed the entire criminal case.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Case No. 2770 of 2019 and charge-sheet dated 30.08.2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act quashed.

Sandeep Chaturvedi and 2 Othesr Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182964

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32616 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Chaturvedi And 2 Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bed Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

Shri Deena Nath Mishra, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 30.08.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2770 of 2019 (State Vs. Sandeep Chaturvedi and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0318 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1 and applicant nos.2 & 3 are her parents-in-law 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 have decided to live separately and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of the Court to the settlement agreement dated 21.06.2023 drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to this application.

¶11

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.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has filed an affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 and in para 5 of the said affidavit, settlement agreement has been acknowledged and it has been stated that the parties have decided to live separately. Further in para 7, it has been stated that in view of the settlement agreement made between the parties, opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 2770 of

¶22

2019 (State Vs. Sandeep Chaturvedi and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0318 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed.

¶23

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 Nadim

¶25

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

Sandeep Chaturvedi and 2 Othesr v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Chaturvedi and 2 Othesr 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

Harendra Sharma and 6 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

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another