Sandeep Gupta And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1733 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 718 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Sandeep Gupta And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Kinkar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Smt. Rajni B Bajpai
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed following reliefs:-

"to pass an order or direction for quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 41443 of 2020 arising out of charge sheet no. 2 dated 12.06.2020 submitted by the police relating to Case Crime No. 409 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 & 507 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Court No. 29, Lucknow as well as cognizance order 14.10.2020 may also be quashed in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. "

At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the parties have entered into a compromise (by means of compromise deed dated 18.12.2021), which has been verified by the court below on 05.04.2022 in compliance of order passed by this Court on 21.03.2022 in the present petition.

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid are quashed.

Learned counsel for petitioners in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 have settled through compromise their private and civil disputes and as such opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the petitioners. Opposite party no. 2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the petitioners and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably and it is highly doubtful if the ingredients of the offence as alleged are made out.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between the parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present 482 Cr.P.C. petition stands allowed.

Order Date :- 28.4.2022

Virendra