Sunil Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17840 of 2023 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri T.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶2Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 and on account of matrimonial discord, the instant criminal case was instituted against the applicants, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the family and the society, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their all disputes and differences and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of the Court to the para 11 of this application, in which, it has been categorically stated that dispute between the parties has amicably settled and they have restored their relationship and are now living together as husband and wife.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said compromise made between the parties and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them, the entire proceedings be quashed.

¶5Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has filed an affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 and in para 2 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that dispute between the parties has already been compromised and the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are residing together as husband and wife. Further in para 3, it has been stated that opposite party no.2 does not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicants and she has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed.

¶6Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶7This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of:-

(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675.

(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,

(2008) 9 SCC 677.

(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC

1.

(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab,

(2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶8Wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶9Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the present case.

¶10Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 1589 of 2022 (State Vs. Sunil Kumar and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 344 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Syohara, District Bijnor, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, are hereby quashed.

¶11This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 12.10.2023/Nadim High Court of Judicature at Allahabad