Allowed

Vinod Tomar and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024A482/17357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings and the cognizance-summoning order in a case involving Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 67 IT Act. The offence stemmed from a matrimonial dispute that the parties had amicably settled. Quashing was held appropriate as no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned cognizance-summoning order and entire proceedings of criminal case No. 32211 of 2023.

Vinod Tomar and Another Vs State of Up and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144886

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17357 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Tomar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Dhananjay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shivesh Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/informant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including cognizance/summoning order dated 11.07.2023 of criminal case No. 32211 of 2023 (State Vs. Vinod Tomar And Another), arising out of case crime no. 166 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 67 Information Technology Act, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-II/A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Gautam Buddh Nagar, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1 is husband and applicant no.2 is brother-in-law ( devar ) of opposite party no. 2/informant and and the matter relates to matrimonial dispute. Now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the informant of the case does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. It was submitted that the compromise filed by the parties before the trial court concerned, has already been verified by the court concerned, copy of which is on record. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 /informant has concurred with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that both the parties

¶10

have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the informant does not want to proceed with the case pending before the trial court and the impugned proceedings may be quashed, as no useful purpose would be served by exhausting remedy of trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.

¶12

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶13

It is well settled that in appropriate cases, criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise. In the instant case, matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which is private in nature. If parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The informant does not want to proceed with the case against the applicants. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering the law laid down in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed, as the continuance of the same would be nothing but wastage of time of Court.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned cognizance-summoning order and entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against applicants, namely, Vinod Tomar & Jitendra Tomar are hereby quashed.

¶15

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 5.9.2024

¶17

SP/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Tomar and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Tomar and Another v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases