Smt. Neeti Raijada @ Renu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41163 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Neeti Raijada @ Renu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶1Heard Sri Vishnu Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶2The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 06.10.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.1894 of 2009 (New No.488 of 2012), under Sections-452, 323, 427, 504 I.P.C., passed by CJM, Jalaun.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Application U/s 482 No.34073 of 2023 with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 15.09.2023 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 13.10.2023 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶5Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶6Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶7The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein 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 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶8Considering 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.

¶9Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 06.10.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.1894 of 2009 (New No.488 of 2012), under Sections-452, 323, 427, 504 I.P.C., passed by CJM, Jalaun is hereby quashed.

¶10This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Nitin Verma High Court of Judicature at Allahabad