Allowed

Smt. Dilraji and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2023A482/6186/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TheAllahabad High Court, in an application under Section 482 CrPC, allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings based on a matrimonial dispute. The court quashed the proceedings due to a verified compromise between the parties, citing precedent that justice demands ending futile proceedings in familial matters.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Case No. 165 of 2016 and Case Crime No. 8 of 2015 were quashed; application allowed; trial Court directed to pass order of discharge.

Smt. Dilraji and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6186 of 2016 Applicant :- Smt. Dilraji And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Bans Singh,Anil Kumar Mishra,Chandrika Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devesh Vikram

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

On 11.05.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶5

"Learned counsel for the parties submit that during pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. Compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist on 31.05.2022.

¶6

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Mr. Devesh Vikram, prays a week's time to obtain instructions in this regard.

¶7

As prayed, list on 19.05.2023.

¶8

Interim order, granted earlier, if any, is extended till the next date of listing."

¶9

Today, Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that parties have settled their dispute in Criminal Revision No.2306 of 2018, by order of co-ordinate bench of this Court dated 19.01.2023, which is as follows:-

¶10

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶11

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 01.06.2018 passed in case no. 1164 of 2018 (State vs. Satyam Kumar alias Umesh and ors) arising out of case crime no. 8 of 2015, U/s 498A, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Sonebhadra pending in the Court of CJM, Sonebhadra. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the revisionist by the impugned order.

¶12

It is submitted that during the course of proceedings, the parties have reconciled their difference and the compromise has been entered between them which has been produced in writing. The opposite party no.2 has acknowledged the aforesaid facts. Vide order dated 31.10.2022 parties were directed to appear before the court below and permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise deed. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the parties have appeared before the court below and the court below has verified the compromise and have

¶13

submitted its report vide letter/report dated 05.12.2022. Both the parties are agreed that in terms of the compromise the proceeding of case be terminated, and the entire proceedings be quashed.

¶14

Matter is related to matrimonial dispute and both the parties have entered into amicable settlement.

¶15

The fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed that: (SCC p.340, para 58).

¶17

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."

¶18

Where matter are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. [Vide: Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1998) 1 SCC 692].

¶19

In view of the facts that parties have settled the matter through compromise which has been duly verified and the dispute is of matrimonial in nature the revisionists accused are liable to be discharged.

¶20

The criminal revision is allowed and the order dated 01.06.2018 is hereby set aside and the charges framed in consequence of the aforesaid order is quashed. Learned trial Court is directed to pass the order of discharge.

¶21

The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within three weeks from today.

¶22

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order download from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶23

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have settled their dispute and compromise has been verified between the parties in aforesaid criminal revision, therefore, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have

¶26

entered into a compromise, therefore, he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶34

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.

¶35

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 165 of 2016 and Case Crime No. 8 of 2015 (State Vs. Satyam Kumar alias Umesh Kumar and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra arising out of Charge sheet dated 30.1.2016, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.

¶36

The application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶37

It is always open to the parties to approach this Court, in case, the verification has been done by playing fraud.

¶38

Order Date :- 19.5.2023/Rahul.

¶39

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Dilraji and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dilraji and 8 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

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

Madhav Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Arti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babloo Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pop Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akram and Others Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Sect. Home And Another