Allahabad High Court
Hansmanu Gupta & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 29
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2782 of 2020
Applicant :- Hansmanu Gupta & Anr.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tripathi
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. and Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2.
2. By means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of case No.9827 of 2020 (State Vs. Hansmanu Gupta and others) arising out of case crime No.459 of 2019 under sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich as well as charge sheet No.1 of 2020 dated 9.1.2020 and also the summoning order dated 29.2.2020 in light of the compromise dated 9.11.2020.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that this Court by means of order dated 2.12.2020, directed the parties to appear before Senior Registrar of this Court on 05.1.2021 for verification of the compromise dated 9.11.2020. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Senior Registrar on the date fixed and the Senior Registrar has verified the compromise and a report dated 05.1.2021 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 9.11.2020.
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 counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate have stated that they have 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 :- 7.1.2021 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
