Allowed

Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2023A482/35084/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Section 406 IPC. The court observed that the parties had amicably settled their differences via a compromise deed, restored their relationship, and the respondent wife did not wish to pursue the case, rendering further proceedings undesirable.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 223 of 2017 under Section 406 IPC are quashed.

Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay and 2 Others Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35084 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ganesh Shankar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 02.12.2019 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 223 of 2017 (Divya Malviya Vs. Ashutosh Upadhyay and Others), under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. VI, Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1 and instant case was instituted against the applicants on account of matrimonial discord, however subsequently, with the intervention of the respected members of both the family, applicants and the opposite party no.2 have amicably settled all their disputes and differences in order to maintain cordial and harmonious relations between them and they have restored their relationship and have no grievance left against each other and are now living peacefully as husband and wife.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that a compromise has also been drawn between the parties.

¶9

Pursuant to the said compromise deed, this Court vide its order dated 14.11.2022 had referred the matter to the court below with the direction that the parties will appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order and also file an application for verification of the original compromise deed.

¶10

Consequent to the said order, the parties appeared before the court below and filed compromise deed dated 17.11.2022, which has been duly verified by the court below vide order dated 17.11.2022, a copy of which has

¶11

been forwarded to this Court and shall form part of the record.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said compromise deed dated 17.11.2022 as well as order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned court below, entire proceedings be quashed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also acknowledged the said compromise deed dated 17.11.2022 made between the parties and parties have settled all their disputes and differences and they have restored their relationship and are now living peacefully as husband and wife.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on instructions, has made a statement at the bar that opposite party no.2 does not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicants and she has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed.

¶15

This Court is not unmindful of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 , 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 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned 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 case.

¶17

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 223 of 2017 (Divya Malviya Vs. Ashutosh Upadhyay and Others), under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. VI, Varanasi, are hereby quashed.

¶18

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Nadim

¶20

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2023.01.04 17:55:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay 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

Sukkhu Ram Vs State of U.P and Another

Shivmurat Ram and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramvir @ Ramvir Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another