Allahabad High Court
Vinay Srivastav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 March, 2023
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41334 of 2022 Applicant :- Vinay Srivastav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ganesh Shankar Patel, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2401 of 2019 (State vs. Vinjay Srivastava and others), under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Pilibhit arising out of Case Crime No. 371 of 2018, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Pilibhit.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 namely Smt. Priti. The present criminal case had been lodged against the applicant no.1 and his family members.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that:-
(i) the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature;
(ii) the first information report came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;
(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos;
(v) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
Pursuant to the order of this Court the compromise deed had been filed by the parties before the Court below and the same has been verified vide order dated 16.2.2023. A copy of the compromise deed and the order of the Court below dated 16.2.2023 are annexed along with the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit dated 13.3.2023.
In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto bitterly estranged couple and their families;
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the opposite party no. 2 has no objection if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being a matrimonial dispute that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing such a prosecution to proceed any further.
Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgement of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
The present application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2023 S.S.