Allahabad High Court
Km. Pooja And Others vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 5 January, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 29
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2518 of 2016
Applicant :- Km. Pooja And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Shukla,Suresh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
2. By means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 945 of 2013 - State Vs. Harsh @ Guddu Yadav and Others, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 707 of 2013, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 336, 147 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Faizabad as well as charge sheet dated 23.06.2014, in the light of compromise dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure - 1 to the Misc. Application No. 20977/2020, filed for early disposal of petition in the light of compromise).
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that this Court by means of order dated 09.12.2020, directed the Trial Court to verify the compromise entered into between the parties. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Trial Court and the Court below has verified the compromise and a report dated 24.12.2020 to this effect has been submitted for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case may be quashed in view of the compromise dated 08.01.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicants as well as opposite party no. 2 have compromised the dispute and as such opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the present case against the applicants.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has stated that he has no objection in case the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed in the light of the compromise.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
8. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.
9. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the applicants and the private respondents and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served will be served by allowing the applicants to be prosecuted in the said trial, therefore the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed, accordingly this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
