Triloki Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38028 of 2023 Applicant :- Triloki Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Lakhan Deobanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghav Ram Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶1Shri Raghav Ram, leaned counsel for opposite party no.2 has filed a short counter affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Shri Raghav Ram, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the records.

¶3This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash charge-sheet no. 39 of 2010 dated 20.03.2010 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 6166 of 2016 (State Vs. Triloki Singh and another) (Old Case No. 1764 of 2010), arising out of Case Crime No. 98 of 2010, under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mirhachi, District Etah, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Etah.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1 and applicant nos. 2 is her brother-in-law.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, present criminal case has been instituted against the applicants by opposite party no.2. He has further submitted that during the pendency of this case, a divorce petition u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi and in the said proceedings, the court at Dwarka had directed the parties to appear before the Counselling Cell, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Pursuant to the said order, the parties appeared before the Conselling Cell and the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled vide settlement agreement dated 29.08.2018, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to this application.

¶6Pursuant to the said settlement, applicant no.1 was required to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to opposite party no.2 and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has already been paid to the opposite party no.2 and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of quashing of the present proceedings before this Court.

¶7Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has appeared and opposite party no.2 has also appeared in person before this Court and pursuant to the settlement made between the parties, Demand Draft No.392088 dated 21.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is being handed over to opposite party no.2 by learned counsel for the applicants today in Court.

¶8Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said compromise and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, entire proceedings against the applicants be quashed.

¶9Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also filed a short counter affidavit, wherein in paragraph 6, the factum of settlement agreement dated 29.08.2018 has been acknowledged and in paragraph 12 of the said affidavit, it is further stated that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed.

¶10Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the 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. Wherein the 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.

¶12Considering 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 above mentioned case.

¶13Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 6166 of 2016 (State Vs. Triloki Singh and another) (Old Case No. 1764 of 2010), arising out of Case Crime No. 98 of 2010, under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mirhachi, District Etah, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Etah, are hereby quashed.

¶14This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Subham High Court of Judicature at Allahabad