Allahabad High Court
Rihasat And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2018
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14874 of 2018
Applicant :- Rihasat And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Shiv Kumar Mishra and Sri Sudhakar Shukla, Advocates have jointly filed vakalatnama on behalf of opp. party no. 2 and a joint affidavit has also been filed by them on behalf of the applicant no. 1 and the opp. party no. 2, let these documents be taken on record.
Heard, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1415 of 2014 (Najrin @ Shanno Vs. Rihasat and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar as well as summoning order dated 8.10.2014, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are jeth and the applicant no. 3 is devar of the opp. party no. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 23.11.2017 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application.
It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) and has submitted that since the mater has been compromised between the parties amicably, hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution of the applicants in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the opp. party no.2, therefore, the present case be finally decided.
Sri Shiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2, states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further with the matter.
In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 23.11.2017, therefore, 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 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014), Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another,J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2018
Gss
