Uday Bhan Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40272 of 2023 Applicant :- Uday Bhan Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶1A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Prateek Prajapati, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on account of monetary dispute between the parties, the instant criminal case was instituted against the applicants, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of the family and the society, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled all their disputes and differences and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of the Court to the settlement agreement dated

16.10.2023 drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to this application.

¶5Lerned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that in view of the said settlement agreement and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them, the entire proceedings be quashed.

¶6Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has been filed a short counter affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, the compromise has been acknowledged and it has been further stated that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed.

¶7Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶8This 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.

¶9Wherein 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.

¶10Considering 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.

¶11Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 116528 of 2023 (State Vs.Udaybhan Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 42 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 406, 420, 427 IPC, Police Station Fajalganj, District Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court (Crimes Against Women), Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed.

¶12This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 RKM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad