SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pramod Kumar Goel And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 January, 2020


?Court No. – 66

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 14902 of 2015

Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Goel And 4 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Atul Kumar Singh

Hon’ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 25.11.2014 in Compliant Case no. 3785 of 2014 (Brijlal Gupta vs. Pramod Kumar Goel and others) u/s 452, 323, 324, 504 IPC, P.S. Katghar, District Moradabad.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the present proceeding has been drawn as a counterblast to matrimonial case instituted by Smt. Shweta by her father-in-law opposite party no. 2. It has been argued that matrimonial case u/s 498A IPC was referred to the Mediation centre of this Court and the parties have settled all their differences and settlement report dated 15.11.2016 was submitted by the Mediator; settlement report is appended with record of Application u/s 482 No. 4328 of 2016 and in para-6(g) of the said report it is stated that the parties have agreed to withdraw Complaint Case no. 3785 of 2014 which is under challenge in the present application. In para-6(h) it is stated that the parties have filed Divorce Petition no. 222 of 2016 u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family court which has been decreed vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2016. Learned counsel further pointed out that the proceeding instituted by Smt. Shweta has been quashed in Crl. Misc. Application no. 4328 of 2016 on the basis of settlement agreement, therefore, the proceeding under challenge the present applicant may be quashed.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant. He further contended that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the present case against the applicant and the same may be allowed.

In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter is purely of matrimonial nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the settlement agreement dated 15.11.2016, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC, 303; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and 2014 AIR SCW 2065; Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

The present application is accordingly allowed.

Order Date :- 13.1.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation