Akash And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 22597 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167982
 
Court No. - 89
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30466 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Akash And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

1. Sri Prem Kumar has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in the Court today. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 14.10.2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 4 Dory Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun, as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 472/2021, "Smt. Priyanka vs Akash & others", under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Offence against Women's) Jalaun at Orai, District- Jalaun.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no. 1 is husband and applicants no. 2 to 5 are in-laws of opposite party no. 2 and both the parties have settled the dispute out of the Court and the agreement deed is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. He further submitted that opposite party no. 2 is living with applicants and she does not want to proceed further in the offences alleged herein and there is no dispute pending between the parties. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on. He further placed reliance over various judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and held that proceeding can be quashed on account of settlement between the parties.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants 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 case are quashed.

6. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

7. 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 and taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), Criminal Appeal No.1618 of 2008 (Manoj Sharma vs. State and others), Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010 (Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another), Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and 2013 (83) ACC 278 (Shaifullah and others vs. State of U.P. and another), the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

8. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed.

Order Date :- 21.8.2023

Anjali