Allahabad High Court
Rahul Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 4 April, 2023
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3162 of 2023
Applicant :- Rahul Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Avadhesh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to typographical mistake, in the array of the parties at the place of the opposite party no. 2 name of the applicant- Rahul Pandey has wrongly been mentioned. Therefore, he requested to mention the name of Preeti Pandey wife of the applicant as the opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make the necessary amendment during the course of the day.
Vakalatnama field today by Ms. Nasreen Bano, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no. 2- Preeti Pandey is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 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 the entire proceedings of the complaint case no. 5654 of 2014 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station- Pura Kalandar, District- Faizabad pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad as well as impugned judgment and order dated 1.6.2018 and impugned order dated 29.9.2015.
Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that earlier the applicant approached before this Court by means of Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 31 of 2019 and the revision was disposed of vide order dated 9.12.2021 by which, this Court directed to both the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of compromise. In pursuance of the order dated 9.12.2021, both the parties appeared before the ACJM, Ist, Faizabad on 30.5.2022 and the compromise has been verified. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the parties have entered into a compromise.
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 of this Court be communicated to the court below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 4.4.2023
Anuj Singh
