Nikku And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 9482 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1458 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Nikku And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pal Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Surendra Kumar Verma
 

 
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 entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3050 of 2013, under Sections 323,504,506,452 I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Gonda whereby the judicial magistrate summoned the applicants and revision filed against the said order was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 5, Gonda.

At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that in pursuance of order dated 17.3.2023, both the parties have appeared before the Senior Registrar of this Court along with their respective counsel. It is further 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 Senior Registrar of this Court on 24.3.2023, which is available on 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 petitioner 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 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 :- 31.3.2023

Shravan