Allahabad High Court
Anuj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 March, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11134 of 2019
Applicant :- Anuj Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel filed vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 28 of 2016 (State Vs. Anuj) arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2016, under section 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Naugawan Sadat, District Amroha along with charge-sheet dated 5.5.2016 pending before learned IInd Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Amroha.
Learned counsel for the applicant contend that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 5.2.2019 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 applicant has placed reliance on the judgement 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 applicant 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.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also 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, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 5.2.2019, 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 :- 28.3.2019
Masarrat
