Allowed¶13

Priyanka Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023A482/44801/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing of complaint case on basis of verified compromise; matrimonial dispute settled by compromise deed dated 12.05.2023 verified by trial court on 3.11.2023; offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act; P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar; complainant herself sought quashing against Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 4; AGA raised no objection; relies on Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, Prabatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; no large social impact; allegations trivial; prior Application U/S 482 No. 31065 of 2023 order dated 24.08.2023.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1281 of 2022, Priyanka Pandey v. Atul Tiwari and Others (Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar). ¶13

Priyanka Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1281 of 2022, Priyanka Pandey v. Atul Tiwari and Others (Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar).

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1281 of 2022 (under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act) ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the settlement of the matrimonial dispute and the compromise verified by the trial court.

¶7

Court's answer

The matrimonial dispute between the parties stood settled: a compromise deed dated 12.05.2023 was executed and was verified by the trial court concerned (vide order dated 3.11.2023), and the learned AGA did not dispute the factum of compromise and raised no objection to quashing.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Because the settlement was between two families, the incident alleged had no large social impact and the allegations were trivial in nature, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed, following Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Prabatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case were quashed.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant herself, Priyanka Pandey, and quashed the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1281 of 2022, Priyanka Pandey v. Atul Tiwari and Others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar (prayer pressed against Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 4). The matrimonial dispute had been settled by a compromise deed dated 12.05.2023, verified by the trial court vide order dated 3.11.2023 in terms of the Court's earlier order dated 24.08.2023 in Application U/S 482 No. 31065 of 2023; the learned AGA did not dispute the compromise and raised no objection. Relying on Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Prabatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court held that the settlement was between two families, the incident alleged had no large social impact and the allegations were trivial in nature, and accordingly quashed the entire proceedings of the criminal case.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:233123

¶2

Court No. - 92

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44801 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Priyanka Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ajay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Kunwar Ajay Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Prem Prakash Tiwari, learned AGA for Staterespondents.

¶7

The instant application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1281 of 2022, Priyanka Pandey v. Atul Tiwari and Others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed an earlier application, under Section 482 No. 31065 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.08.2023 directing the parties to appear before the trial court and submit verification of compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in terms of the said compromise, parties had appeared before the trial court for verification of compromise and the trial court, vide order dated 3.11.2023, has verified the compromise between the parties.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties and the Opposite Party No.2, wife and husband respectively and there was a matrimonial discard between them, which was been duly settled between the parties. Out of the said record, vide the compromise deed dated 12.05.2023 was executed, which has been verified by the trial court, vide order dated 3.11.2023, in terms of the order passed by this court earlier, in the application U/S 482 No. 31065 of 2023, filed by the applicant herein.

¶10

In view thereof, the applicant who is also complainant in the instant case has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings against the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 4.

¶11

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, learned AGA for the State do not dispute the factum of

¶12

compromise between the parties and has no objection for quashing of the proceedings against the Opposite Party No. 2 and 4.

¶13

Having heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and has carefully gone through the records of the case and on the aforesaid background of matrimonial disputes, which has been settled between the parties, and the compromise was executed, which is verified by the trial court concerned and the aforesaid settlement of dispute between two families and the incident alleged had no large social impact and the allegations made are trivial in nature, the instant application is allowed in view of the judgements of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Prabatbhai Aahir alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2017) 9 SCC 641, and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Akram

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MOHD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priyanka Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subedar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fakretaj Alam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

D.S.Bedi and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Saraswat and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another