Allahabad High Court
Dheeraj Sonkar @ Neetu Sonkar And 3 ... vs State Of Up Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home ... on 5 April, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19130
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2889 of 2025
Applicant :- Dheeraj Sonkar @ Neetu Sonkar And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Daya Shanker Tripathi
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and Sri Daya Shanker Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2.
2. By means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 17.8.2023 resulting in Complaint Case No.628 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow in terms of compromise dated 20.9.2024 (contained in Annexure No.6 to the petition) verified by the trial court vide its order dated 25.3.2025 (contained in Annexure No.8),.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that this Court by means of order dated 3.3.2025, directed the parties to appear before trial court on 17.3.2025 for verification of the compromise dated 17.03.2025. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the trial court on the date fixed and the trial court has verified the compromise and a report dated 25.3.2025 to this effect has been submitted for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case may be quashed in view of the compromise dated 20.09.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicants as well as opposite party no. 2 have compromised the dispute and as such opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the present case against the applicants.
5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate have stated that they have no objection in case the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed in the light of the compromise.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
8. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.
9. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the applicants and the private respondents and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served will be served by allowing the applicants to be prosecuted in the said trial, therefore the proceedings of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 17.8.2023 resulting in Complaint Case No.628 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow are quashed.
10. Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 5.4.2025
RKM.
