Allahabad High Court
Nahid Bi Khan And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 1 December, 2023
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:78940
Court No. - 11
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11696 of 2023
Applicant :- Nahid Bi Khan And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Singh,Rajesh Kumar Tewari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 03.09.2016 passed by ACJM V, Court No. 29, Lucknow in Case No. 2915 of 2016 arising out Case Crime No. 158 of 2016 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station- Chowk, District-Lucknow as also the Charge Sheet No. 01 Dated 26.07.2016 as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2915 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 158 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC (State of U.P. vs. Shanu & Others) pending before ACJM V, Court No. 29, Lucknow.
It is stated that this Court vide its order dated 06.10.2023 referred the matter to the trial court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.
In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 06.10.2023, the order dated 02.11.2023 regarding verification of compromise has been passed by the Court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T Act, Lucknow, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.
For the purposes of deciding the present application in the light of compromise, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court passed in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409.
Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of trial Court dated 02.11.2023 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, which is essentially a matrimonial dispute, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the same are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.
Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 1.12.2023
Vinay/-
