Allowed

Sekhar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 May 2019Tr.Pet.Crl/14/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of a criminal petition applying to quash pending criminal and civil proceedings based on a compromise between husband and wife involving payment of maintenance money.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 07.09.2017 and 15.05.2015 in Maintenance and Guardianship cases as well as Complaint Case nos. 1301/2013 and 31/2011 were quashed. Issues 10356/2018 disposed of. Tr. Petition dismissed as

Sekhar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Custody and Guardianship | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tr.Petition (Cri.) No.14 of 2012 With I.A.No.1648 of 2012 -- Sekhar Singh . . … Petitioner . Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. …… Opp.parties . With Cr.M.P.No.1399 of 2015 With I.A.No.10355 of 2018 With I.A.No.10356 of 2018

¶2

--- Sekhar Singh . . … Petitioner . Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. …… Opp.parties . With Cr.M.P.No.1714 of 2015 Sri Prakash Singh @ Sri Babu and Anr. …… Petitioner . Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand and Anr. …… Opp.parties . With Cr.M.P.No.1725 of 2015

¶4

Ms. Reshma Singh and Anr. . . … Petitioner . Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand and Anr. …… Opp.parties . With Cr.Revision no.1736 of 2017

¶6

Sekhar Singh . . … Petitioner . Versus State of Jharkhand and Anr. …… Opp.parties .

¶7

----------------

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶9

------

¶10

For the Petitioners : M/s. Nitish Ranjan Sinha, Faiz Ur. Rahman, Bipin Kumar, Ranjan Kumar, Rahul Kumar, Vijay Kant Dubey, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Vijay Kumar, Advocates. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P.no.2 : M/s. Manoj Kr. Choubey, N.K.Chatterjee, Jitendra Tripathi, Bhola Nath Ojha, Madhav Prasad, Advocates. ------ 21/01.05.2019 I.A.No.10356 of 2018(In Cr.M.P.No.1399/2015)

¶11

The petitioner/husband Shekhar Singh and O.P./wife Nidhi Kumari are present along with their counsels.

¶12

The above interlocutory application has been filed for withdrawal/compromise of all the pending cases pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶13

¶14

Learned counsel for the O.P./wife, namely, Nidhi Kumari has submitted that on the intervention of the friends, well wishers and relatives, the O.P./wife has amicably settled the dispute with her husband, namely, Shekhar Singh on payment of Rs.65.00 lakhs as permanent alimony and maintenance. It is submitted that both the parties have voluntarily and on their sweet will and own accord amicably settled the matter. It is submitted that in terms of the compromise O.P./wife has received Rs.65.00 lakhs from her husband towards permanent alimony and maintenance. Both the parties have agreed to withdraw all the cases instituted by them in the courts at Bokaro, Ranchi and Patna.

¶15

It is submitted that hereafter they shall not institute any case or make any claim against either of the parties and the petitioner/husband shall withdraw the criminal cases instituted by him against O.P./wife at Patna.

¶16

Learned counsel for the O.P./wife has submitted that she does not want to press Miscellaneous Appeal No. 156 of 2018 pending in Hon’ble Patna High Court.

¶17

On account of the amicable settlement and the compromise both the parties have jointly prayed for quashing of Complaint Case no.1301/2013 pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Bokaro (in Cr.M.P.No.1714/2015 and Cr.M.P.No.1725/2015); Balidih P.S.Case No.31/2011 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro (in Tr.Petition(Cri.) No.14 of 2012); for quashing the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the Principal Judge,Family Court, Bokaro in Maintenance Case no.82 of 2011 (in Cr.Revision no.1736 of 2017); for quashing the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Guardianship Case no.12 of 2013 (in Cr.M.P.no.1399/2015).

¶18

Heard. Considering the fact that both the parties have compromised and amicably settled the matter and O.P./wife does not want to proceed further with the prosecution of the cases instituted by her and the petitioner/husband also does not want to proceed further with any of the criminal cases instituted by him, moreover, in terms of the agreement and amicable settlement, the

¶19

¶20

O.P./wife has received Rs.65.00 lakhs as full and final settlement as permanent alimony and maintenance, accordingly compromise is, hereby, allowed. In view of the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties, the continuation of further proceedings of Complaint Case no.1301/2013 pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Bokaro and Balidih P.S.Case No.31/2011 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro will be an exercise in futility leading to wastage of time and an abuse of process of the court, consequently, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case no.1301 of 2013 and Balidih P.S.Case no.31 of 2013 are, hereby, quashed. The order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the Principal Judge,Family Court, Bokaro in Maintenance Case no.82 of 2011 and the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,Bokaro in Guardianship Case no.12 of 2013 are also quashed. 5. I.A.No.10356 of 2018 stands disposed off.

¶21

Therefore, in view of the compromise, Cr.M.P.No.1399 of 2015, Cr.M.P.No.1714 of 2015, Cr.M.P.No.1725 of 2015 and Cr. Revision no. 1736 of 2017 stand disposed off.

¶22

Since the Balidih P.S.Case No.31/2011, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro, transfer of which has been sought, is quashed, the Tr.Petition(Cri.) No.14 of 2012 has become infructuous, accordingly it is dismissed as infructuous.

¶23

In view of the final order passed in the above petitions, I.A.No.10355 of 2018 and I.A.No.1648 of 2012 stand disposed off.

¶24

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶25

Biswas.

Sekhar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sekhar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Similar cases

Navnit Kumar Chaudhary Represented through His Mother Fulo Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramashish Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand