Allahabad High Court
Smt. Maya Devi And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17262 of 2009
Applicant :- Smt. Maya Devi And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Salman Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State and perused the record brought on record.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with the prayer to stay/quash the entire proceedings in criminal complaint case no. 1055 of 2009 under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. & Sec.3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,Orai.
In the short counter affidavit it is specifically mentioned by opposite party no.2 that both parties have entered into a compromise on 25.6.209 outside the Court, hence she does not want to pursue the case pending before this Court.
Perused the office report of the Mediation Centre of this Court dated 9.11.2009 the mediation was completed which reveals that parties have settled their dispute and have no grievance as on date against each other.
In view of the above contention this Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:- B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
IA
