Amit Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 7223 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19719 of 2014
 

 
Applicant :- Amit Srivastava
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Chandra Srivastav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the further criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 186 of 2014 (Smt. Rekha Tyagi Vs. Amit Srivastava),under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Gajraula, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar, District Amroha.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the matter has been compromised between the parties and with regard to the same the order dated 29.9.2022 has been fled to the supplementary affidavit as annexure no. 2. It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) and has submitted that since the mater has been compromised between the parties amicably, hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution of the applicant in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the opp. party no.2, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

Learned A.G.A. has also states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further with the matter.

In view of the fact that the opposite party no. 2 does not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014), Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another,J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

The present application is accordingly allowed.

Order Date :- 13.3.2023/A.