Allowed

Ravindra Sikarwar @ Ravi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024A482/19428/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings (Sections 498A, 323 IPC, D.P. Act) following a verified compromise between the parties in a private matrimonial dispute, relying on State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order.

Ravindra Sikarwar @ Ravi and 2 Others vs State of U.P… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:138503

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19428 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ravindra Sikarwar @ Ravi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Certified copy of compromise and order of trial Court filed by learned counsel for the applicants are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 30.10.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 13.05.2022, of case No. 5561 of 2022 (State Vs. Ravindra Sikarwar @ Ravi and others), arising out of case crime no. 0040 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.2, 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

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶13

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 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 charge-sheet/cognizancesummoning order and entire proceedings of the aforesaid case against applicants, namely, Ravindra Sikarwar @ Ravi, Smt. Peeto Devi & Sushila are hereby quashed.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 29.8.2024

¶17

SP/-

¶18

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

Ravindra Sikarwar @ Ravi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Sikarwar @ Ravi 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs C.B.I.

Smt. Neha Vs Smt. Maya Devi

Ram Ikbal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ashu vs State of Up and Another

Masqoor Alam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pulkit Bajpai vs State of Up and Another