Allowed

Kamal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024A482/17994/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 CrPC application, the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings involving Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the D.P. Act based on a verified compromise between the family members and the informant, citing lack of adverse societal impact.

What did the court decide?

The charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and entire criminal proceedings against the applicants were quashed.

Kamal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:129880

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17994 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kamal And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Sri Arjun Singh Yadav, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2/informant, which is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 26.11.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 22.03.2024, of criminal case No. 5788 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 553 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Sikandra, District Agra, pending in the court of C.J.M., Agra, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party no. 2/informant and remaining applicants are family members of applicant no. 1 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

¶10

by the court concerned, copy of which is also 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.

¶11

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 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.

¶12

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

¶13

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶14

In the instant case, it appears that 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.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned charge-sheet/cognizancesummoning order and entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal

¶16

case against applicants, namely, Kamal, Radha, Rajkumar, Pooja & Vipin are, hereby, quashed.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 SP/-

¶19

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

Kamal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases