Quashed

Kapil Dev Tyagi and 2 Others v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2023A482/41270/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Indian Penal Code sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506. Relying on established principles regarding matrimonial disputes, the Court observed that the dispute was personal in nature and had been mutually settled via a compromise dated 2.1.2023.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case were quashed.

Kapil Dev Tyagi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41270 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kapil Dev Tyagi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 6.8.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Meerut in Criminal Case No. 4707 of 2020, (State Vs.Kapil Dev Tyagi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 475 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 352 IPC , P.S. Kankarkhera , District Meerut as well as entire proceedings of the aforementioned case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 2.1.2023 has been to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) and has submitted that since the mater has been compromised between the parties amicably, hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution of the applicant in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the opp. party no.4, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 also states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the opposite party no.4 does not want to proceed further with the matter.

¶9

In view of the fact that the husband and wife do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the

¶10

matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 2.1.2023, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶11

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014), Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another,J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶12

The present application is accordingly allowed.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.2.2023/A.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kapil Dev Tyagi and 2 Others v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Dev Tyagi and 2 Others v. State of U.P and 3 Others

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

Satya Prakash Chaubey @ Chhote Chaubey Vs State of U.P and Another

Prabal Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anju Aggarwal Vs state of up through secretary home and 2 others

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Mumtaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others