Allahabad High Court
Rahul Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. & Another on 30 July, 2021
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2420 of 2021
Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Srivastava
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Asthana
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Sri Rahul Pandey, Advocate and Ms. Deepanjali Singh, Advocate have filed joint power on behalf of opposite party no.2 today and the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Deepanjali Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet No. 01 of 2018, dated 29.07.2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Aliganj, District-Lucknow and as well as quashing of entire criminal proceedings of Case No.14711 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0576 of 2017.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the parties have compromised the matter and the compromise deed dated 26.11.2020 is filed as Annexure-2 to the present 482 Cr.P.C. petition. Counsels for both the parties agree that parties with the mutual consent have filed Divorce Petition bearing No.3079 of 2020, under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is still pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and in the said case compromise deed dated 26.11.2020 is already filed. Counsel for parties state that even in the divorce petition filed under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, in paragraph-8 it is specifically noted that parties shall withdraw cases filed against each other and, hence, the proceedings against the applicant be quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of 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) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicant and opp. party No.2 have compromised the dispute and as such opp. party No.2 does not want to press the present case against the applicant.
Learned counsel for opp. party no.2 and learned AGA have stated that they have no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicant.
From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
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) & Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant finds force that this court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceeding as the dispute being matrimonial in nature and have been amicably settled between the parties.
Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence the proceeding of the aforesaid case hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application/petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021
Arti/-
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)
