Allowed

Nishant Diwakar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024A482/6071/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a husband for matrimonial offences including Sections 498A and BNS/IPC counterparts. Based on a verified mutual compromise and the private nature of the dispute, the Court quashed the charge-sheet and cognizance order.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the charge-sheet dated 13.04.2022, cognizance order dated 02.02.2024, and entire criminal proceedings.

Nishant Diwakar vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114722

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6071 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Nishant Diwakar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 13.04.2022 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 02.02.2024, of case no. 138298/2023 (State Vs. Nishant Diwakar), arising out of Case Crime No. 27/2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant is husband of opposite party no.2/victim and the matter relates to matrimonial dispute and that now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter. Earlier, both the parties have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.6071 of 2024 for quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise, wherein by order dated 28.02.2024, the parties were directed to submit compromise application before the trial Court concerned. In pursuance to that order, both the parties have filed a compromise application before the trial Court concerned, which has been verified by the trial Court and the certified copy of the verification report is on record. It was submitted that in view of aforesaid facts, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that as both the parties have compromised the matter, thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

¶10

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

¶11

So far as position of law on the point of quashing of proceedings on ground of settlement, is concerned, in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2019, State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others, decided on 05.03.2019 , Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its earlier decisions in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, decided on 4.1.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar, decided on 22.02.2019 vide Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No.9859/2013, has held as under:

¶12

"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

¶13

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the noncompoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶14

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶15

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶16

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such

¶17

injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶18

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

¶19

Keeping the above stated position of law in mind, in the instant case it appears that the matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which is private in nature and 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 complainant 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 above stated law and facts of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings of the case in question be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned charge-sheet/cognizance order and entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed .

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 18.7.2024

¶22

SP/-

¶23

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

Nishant Diwakar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishant Diwakar 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

Shreya Verma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bushra Anjum vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naveen Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Saleem @ Mohd Saleem vs State of U.P. and Another

Urman Alias Arman and 6 Others vs State of Up and Another