Allahabad High Court
Tekchand Sharma And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 May, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16865 of 2019
Applicant :- Tekchand Sharma And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandr Bhan Singh Chandel
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of O.P. No. 2 annexing compromise, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ram Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Chandra Bhan Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1098 of 2018 (State Vs. Tek Chandra Sharma & others) along with charge-sheet no. 01 of 2018 dated 30.7.2018 & cognizance order dated 16.10.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 202 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A, 342 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahr pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Anoopshahar, Bulandshahr.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that a compromise deed dated 10.5.2019 has been filed on behalf of O.P. No. 2 by way of short counter affidavit but prior to the filing of this compromise deed the O.P. No. 2 had filed a case U/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before Family Judge, Bulandshahr numbered as 456 of 2018. In the family court both parties entered in compromise on 10.4.2019 and now they are living together as husband and wife. The certified copy of the statement given by O.P. No. 2 in respect of settlement before Family Judge, Bulandshahr dated 19.4.2019 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants 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 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.
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 10.5.2019, 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 :- 29.5.2019
Masarrat
