Allowed

Abhishek Tyagi and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023A482/40081/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the entire criminal proceedings and summoning order were quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon a verified compromise between matrimonial parties, following the principle that settlements can quash proceedings in certain cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 30.06.2018 and entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3605 of 2018 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 354A I.P.C. are hereby quashed.

Abhishek Tyagi and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40081 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Abhishek Tyagi And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Vinod Kant Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Kapil Tyagi

¶5

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 30.06.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3605 of 2018 (Meenakshi Tyagi Vs. Abhishek and others), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 354A I.P.C., Police Station Hapur Kotwali, District Hapur pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Hapur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant nos. 1 to 3 are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of opposite party no.2 and the dispute between the parties are matrimonial in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on 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. There are no injuries. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. 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 applicant.

¶10

In the above regard, a compromise has been entered into between

¶11

the parties. Thereafter the applicants have approached this Court by means of the present application for quashing the aforesaid case in terms of compromise entered into between the parties. A Coordinate Bench of this Court passed order on 02.03.2023 directing the parties to appear before the court below along with copy of the compromise for its verification and the court below inturn was directed to verify the same in the presence of both the parties.

¶12

Pursuant to the above order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hapur vide order dated 20.03.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hapur vide order dated 20.03.2023 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure no.1 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the concerned Magistrate, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed.

¶14

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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 case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶24

Accordingly, the proceeding of the summoning order dated 30.06.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3605 of 2018 (Meenakshi Tyagi Vs. Abhishek and others), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 354A I.P.C., Police Station Hapur Kotwali, District Hapur pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Hapur are hereby quashed.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 5.4.2023 Anurag/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhishek Tyagi and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Tyagi and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Shabana Bano Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu @ Brajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Musahid Khan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priya Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Kanhaiyalal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another