Allahabad High Court
Virendra Singh @ Virendra @ Papu ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2267 of 2022
Applicant :- Virendra Singh @ Virendra @ Papu And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey and Piyush Kumar Giri Advocates filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 / first informant and perused the material available on record.
By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the chargesheet and summoning order dated 05.10.2015 in respect of Case Crime No.7 of 2015 under Sections 498A,323,504,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana District Bahraich pending the court of Civil Judge (JD) F.T.C. , Mahila Utpidan District Bahraich on the basis of said compromise made between the complaint and the petitioner no.1.
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 12.10.2021), which has been verified by the court below on 22.12.2021 in compliance of order passed by this Court on 15.12.2021 in Case:- U/S 482/378/407 No.5320 of 2021.
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.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 5.5.2022
dk/
