Allowed

Ankit Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2023A482/6800/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under various IPC sections. The Court held that since the parties had entered into a compromise and the matter was a matrimonial dispute resolved by mutual settlement, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge sheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings against the applicant based on the compromise.

Ankit Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6800 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Fakhruzzaman,Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Present application has been filed by Sri Ankit Sharma (husband), his father Sri Param Sukh Sharma and his mother Smt. Nisha Sharma. At the admission stage, the application had been entertained on behalf of parents of Sri Ankit Sharma. During pendency of the proceedings, Sri Ankit Sharma entered into settlement with his estranged wife Smt. Pooja. Consequently, the prosecution arising from the same case crime number has been quashed against Sri Ankit Sharma in Application U/S 482 No. 2336 of 2022 by order dated 07.3.2022 quoted below:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of impugned charge sheet dated 7.8.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 11.10.218 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Jhansi along with entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 2497 of 2018 (State Vs. Ankit Sharma and others) in Case Crime no. 15 of 2018 under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 406 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Jhansi on the basis of compromise.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case has been lodged against the applicant and his other family members but that no real criminal offence had actually occurred.

¶9

It is thus submitted that the present criminal prosecution has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties, with passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and they are living together as husband and wife.

¶10

He further submits, at present, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to

¶11

press charge against the applicant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. In fact, in the compromise 13.12.2021 filed by the opposite party no. 2, she has supported the contention advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

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 matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 13.12.2021, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶14

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) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶15

The present application is accordingly allowed."

¶16

In view the fact noted, present application must also succeed and is accordingly allowed on the same terms for the same reasons.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.1.2023 Faraz

¶18

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

Ankit Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Sharma 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

Lal Bahadur Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Soraon and 3 Others

C/M Dharam Samaj Degree College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Uday Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Vijay Singh Sengar Vs State of U.P and Another

Dinesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others