Allowed

Raj Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2024/6459/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quarantined an application under Section 528 of BNS seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and DP Act. The High Court allowed the plea because the parties reached a settlement via mediation, agreeing to divorce by mutual consent and receiving the payout.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cognizance order, summoning order dated 29.08.2018, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1150/2022 are hereby quashed.

Raj Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72507

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6459 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Milan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Tiwari,Shivam Srivastava,Subhash Pandey,Vikas Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Milan Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anshuman Verma, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Vikas Yadav, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the records.

¶7

The applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 are present in person in compliance of the previous order passed by this Court.

¶8

By means of the instant application filed under Section 528 of BNSS the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned cognizance order as well as summoning order dated 29.08.2018 along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1150/2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 792/2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 DP Act registered at Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 30, District Sultanpur, on the ground that the parties have entered into a settlement.

¶9

The applicants had filed a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing HMA No. 3659/2023, which was referred to to the Mediation Centre of Dwarka courts at New Delhi,

¶10

where the parties arrived at a settlement dated 02.03.2024. In the aforesaid settlement, it was settled that the parties would get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent and the petitioner/husband shall pay Rs. 5 lakh as settlement amount. Rs. 4 lakh have already been paid by the applicant/husband to the opposite party no. 2 and a suit under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the parties jointly. The petitioner/husband and opposite party no. 2 had filed suit under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, South West, Dwarka, New Delhi bearing HMA No. 1137/2024. The applicant/husband has handed over a bank draft of Rs. 1,00,000/- bearing No. 675666 dated 31.02.2024 issued by Indian Bank, Sangipur (06667) to the opposite party no. 2 who has acknowledged the same. The applicant/husband and the opposite party no. 2 jointly requested the Court that there were matrimonial dispute between the parties which have culminated in a settlement under which the parties had agreed to part ways and the opposite party no. 2 has received the settlement amount and, therefore, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1150/2022 be quashed.

¶11

Accordingly, the application is allowed .

¶12

The impugned cognizance order as well as summoning order dated 29.08.2018 along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1150/2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 792/2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 DP Act registered at Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 30, District Sultanpur, are hereby quashed.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.10.2024 Pradeep/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmendra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Dharmendra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Aparna Rajesh Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Rishabh Lodhi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Md. Sageer and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Barati and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others