Allahabad High Court
Sooraj And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42033 of 2022
Applicant :- Sooraj And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Paritosh Sukla,Krishna Kant Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Kant Tiwari and Sri Amit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding in pursuance of charge sheet no. 43 of 2020 dated 23.12.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 2.8.2021 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/FTC/A.C.J.M. Bijnor in Case no. 420 of 2021 (State Vs. Sooraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 10 of 2020, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 19.11.2022 has been filed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application and the copy of the same has also been filed before the court below. The court below has verified the same on 7.4.2023 and has sent its report to this Court. 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 counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 19.11.2022, 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 :- 8.5.2023/A.
