Allowed

Hans Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023A482/5153/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashed the cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A, IPC and D.P. Act. The quashing was permitted following a verified compromise entered into between the husband and wife, supported by apex court precedents allowing settlement in matrimonial disputes.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of cognizance/summoning order dated 4th February, 2016 and entire criminal case CNR No. UPM004002382016 COMP No. 802 of 2016 are quashed.

Hans Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5153 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Hans Raj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- J.P. Pandey,Devesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Devesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vandeep, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, as well as perused the materials on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the cognizance/summoning order dated 4th February, 2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. CNR No. UPM004002382016 COMP No. 802 of 2016 (State Vs. Hans Raj & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Moradabad on the basis of the compromise.

¶7

On 13.02.2023, this Court passed following order in the matter:-

¶8

"Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Vandeep, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vakalatnama in the Court today which is taken on record as well as perused the material available on record.

¶9

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2 and the dispute between the parties are matrimonial in nature. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 has now decided to put an end to her strained relationship and move on with her life and after settling the dispute, the opposite party no.2 is residing happily with the applicant along with her children since 2016. It is further submitted that in heat of moment, opposite party no.2 has lodged the FIR but now she does not want to prosecute the applicant. It is, thus, contended that 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 28th March, 2023 before the appropriate Bench.

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they shall make a compromise deed along with an 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 2nd March, 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 applicant in the aforesaid criminal case."

¶18

Pursuant to the above order, the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Crime against Women, Moradabad vide order dated 21.03.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. Crime against Women, Moradabad dated 21.03.2023 and the compromise have been brought on record.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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 proceedings of cognizance/summoning order dated 4th February, 2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. CNR No. UPM004002382016 COMP No. 802 of 2016 (State Vs. Hans Raj & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Moradabad, are hereby quashed.

¶30

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

¶31

Order Date :- 28.3.2023 Abhishek Singh

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hans Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hans Raj Singh 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

Nasir Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyawati Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jeetu @ Gyanendra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another