Allahabad High Court
Jameela Khatoon And 4 Others vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 22 December, 2023
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:85722
Court No. - 11
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12753 of 2023
Applicant :- Jameela Khatoon And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civils Ecrt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 1820 of 2022 (State vs. Absar Ahmad and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 110 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Faizabad/Ayodhya and further to stay the proceedings of Case No. 1820 of 2022.
It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9348 of 2022 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 27.10.2023 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.
It appears from the order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure No. 7) that the court concerned has verified the compromise, 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 relief(s) sought, on the basis of compromise, the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court 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 31.10.2023 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 matrimonial in nature, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, entire proceedings, in issue, are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.
Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in above terms.
Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concerned Court forthwith.
Order Date :- 22.12.2023
Arun/-
