Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Chaudhari @ Manoj Chaudhari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 December, 2023
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238280
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45872 of 2023
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Chaudhari @ Manoj Chaudhari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Shankar Shukla,Ashwani
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Vakalatnama has been filed today in the Court by Sri Aaditya D. Dwivedi Advocate on behalf of opposite party No.2, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings in ST No.244 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.356 of 2016, under Sections-363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Campierganj, District- Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Adld. Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Gorakhpur.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR was lodged by opposite party No.2 stating therein that applicant enticed away the daughter of informant. He further submitted that applicant and opposite party No.2 resides in the same village and daughter of informant and applicant fall in loved and she left the house on her own sweet will and solemnized marriage and out of their wedlock they have three children. Parties have entered into compromise and have filed compromise application. Entire proceedings by way of Application U/s 482 No.3184 of 2022 this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 29.08.2023 referred the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and trial court submitted report dated 04.10.2023 that parties appeared and they have been verified by their counsels and they do not contest the case further. Parties have settled their dispute. Informant/opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed further against the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that in view of the said compromise and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, entire proceedings against the applicant be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. 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.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant 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.
8. Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
11. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of ST No.244 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.356 of 2016, under Sections-363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Campierganj, District- Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Adld. Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Gorakhpur, is hereby quashed.
12. This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2023
Nitin Verma
