Prem Taneja and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41371 of 2023 Applicant :- Prem Taneja And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari,Mohit Kumar Baisla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶1Heard 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 entire proceedings of Case No.777 of 2021 under Sections 323, 392, 504, 506 I.P.C, P.S. Pallavpuram, District Meerut, pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) ACJM, Fast Track Court, Meerut, in terms of Compromise dated

19.04.2023.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants submits applicant no. 1 was married with niece of opposite party no.2. It is a matrimonial dispute. The applicants challenged the proceedings lodged by the opposite party no. 2 by filing Application 482 Cr.P.C. No.27967 of 2023 before this Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 directed the parties to appear before the court below and file the compromise, thereafter the concerned court shall verify the compromise deed and transmit the same to this Court.

¶4Pursuant to the said order dated 09.08.2023, the parties appeared before the court below and in their presence, after due verification of the contents of the compromise made between the parties, order has been passed by the court verifying the said compromise. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-6 to the application.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute through compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. 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.

¶6Learned A.G.A. 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.

¶7In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶8Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 529, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another; (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2014) Supreme Today 642, the proceedings of the Case No.777 of 2021 under Sections 323, 392, 504, 506 I.P.C, P.S. Pallavpuram, District Meerut, are hereby quashed.

¶9This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Meenu Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad