SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Birma And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 March, 2019


?Court No. – 15

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 16694 of 2005

Applicant :- Smt. Birma And Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar,Rajiv Gupta

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Rajesh

Hon’ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

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

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 652 of 2004: Smt. Alka Srivastava Vs. Rajesh Srivastava others, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, under Section 406 IPC Section 6 of D.P. Act.

Learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that in the supplementary affidavit it has been mentioned that a divorce had taken place between both the parties and accordingly Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad has passed the judgement to that effect on 22.3.2006.

So far as ambit 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, there appears no justification for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case being held up for more than 14 years and it cannot be permitted to further continue for any more.

From perusal of record which has been annexed with this application by the applicants, it appears that criminal case was filed by the respondent no. 2 and after taking into consideration, statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and other evidence available on record, the order of summoning was passed against the applicants for the offence under Section 406 IPC under Section 6 of D.P. Act.

As it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, there remains no justification for further continuing the proceedings nor there is any valid ground for invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., hence application is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

However, it is further observed that in case applicants appear before the court below and apply for bail within a period of one month from this order, the learned court below will consider their application liberally taking into consideration that it is a very old case and parties have amicably entered into a compromise. It is further observed that any observation made in this order shall not influence the court below in passing the order on the application of the applicants.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below for compliance of this order.

Order Date :- 8.3.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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