Tarun Verma @ Tarun Chaudhary And ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 759 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3651 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Tarun Verma @ Tarun Chaudhary And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushlendra Tewari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Yadav,Satish Chandra,Suresh Kumar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for applicants/petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 03.02.2016 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 881 of 2015 under Sections 307,392 I.P.C., Police Station- Gaura Chauraha, District- Balrampur.

At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the parties have entered into a compromise by means of compromise deed, which has been duly verified by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C.-IInd, Balrampur on 25.11.2022.

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 into 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 and 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 application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.

Order Date :- 9.1.2023

Shravan