Allahabad High Court
D.K. Kohli And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 24 March, 2023
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5085 of 2022
Applicant :- D.K. Kohli And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Suryavanshi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pranshu Agrawal
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 17.09.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Court No. 32, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 1724 of 2013, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC against applicant No. 1 and under Sections 504, 506 against applicant Nos. 2 & 3, P.S. Indira Nagar, District Lucknow and subsequent N.B.W. dated 15.06.2022 as well as entire proceedings initiated against the applicants in said Complaint Case.
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/settlement agreement dated 24.2.2023 done before the mediation and conciliation centre of this Court, the report of which shall be part of the record.
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 petitioner. Opposite party no. 2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the petitioner 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/settlement 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 petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.
Order Date :- 24.3.2023
Shravan
