Allowed

Mayank Katheriya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2023A482/4372/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 506 IPC and DP Act. The court relied on a verified compromise between the applicants and the respondent, referencing Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing in such matrimonial disputes.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 9888 of 2015 arising under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act is quashed.

Mayank Katheriya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4372 of 2023 Applicant :- Mayank Katheriya And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajid Ali,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Rakesh Soni, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 17.07.2015 and cognizance order dated 15.10.2015 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 9888 of 2015 (State vs. Mayank Katheriya and others), arising out of Case Crime No.102 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.

¶5

Earlier, on 10.02.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶6

"Mr. S.M. Jafer Husain, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. S.M. Jafer Husain, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 9888 of 2015 (State Vs. Mayank Katheria and Others) and charge sheet dated 17.07.2015 as well as cognizance order dated 15.10.2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 377, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties.

¶9

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and the dispute between the parties are matrimonial in nature. He further submits that on account of intervention of well-wishers of the applicants and opposite party no.2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise. On the basis of said compromise, an affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 before the court below that she does not want to press the criminal proceedings initiated by her against the applicants. It is, thus, contended that

¶10

proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶13

Put up this case on 27.03.2023 as fresh before the appropriate Bench.

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they shall make a fresh compromise application before the court below within a week from today for verification of the aforesaid compromise. They further undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 17.02.2023 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

¶15

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order within 24 hours.

¶16

Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order along with a fresh compromise application before the court concerned within a week from today.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case.

¶18

When the matter is listed next, name of Mr. S.M. Jafer Husain, Advocate shall be shown as learned counsel for opposite party no.2. "

¶19

In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 25.03.2023. A letter dated 23.02.2023 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly has been placed alongwith copy of compromise deed as well as copy of order dated 23.02.2023 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar

¶22

that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶23

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, 5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶27

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 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.

¶28

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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶29

Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 9888 of 2015 (State vs. Mayank Katheriya and others), arising out of Case Crime No.102 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly is hereby quashed.

¶30

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

¶31

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.

¶32

Order Date :- 27.3.2023 Jitendra/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mayank Katheriya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Katheriya 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

Kamlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahmpal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another