Sanjay Khateek and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37339 of 2023 Applicant :- Sanjay Khateek And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶1Shri Dasarathi Das, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama and short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today in Court, which is taken on record.

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

¶3The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheets dated 31.07.2011 and 24.09.2011 and cognizance order dated 26.09.2011 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1353 of 2011 (State Vs. Sanjay Khateek and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 9 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 325, 504, 506 and 452 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), FTC/CAW, Jhansi.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1 and applicant nos. 2 & 3 are her parents-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, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the families, applicants and the opposite party no.2 have amicably and genuinely settled all their disputes and differences and now they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of this Court to a compromise deed dated

16.09.2023, drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to this application.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said compromise made between the parties and in view of the fact that the parties have restored their relationship and are now living together as husband and wife along with their children and leading a happy married life, entire proceedings against the applicants be quashed.

¶8Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has filed a short counter affidavit wherein in paragraph 3, the said compromise has been acknowledged. It is further stated in paragraph 6 that the parties have restored their relationship and now living together as husband and wife along with their children and leading a happy married life. In paragraph 9, it is further stated that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed.

¶9Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10This 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.

¶11Considering 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.

¶12Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 1353 of 2011 (State Vs. Sanjay Khateek and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 9 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 325, 504, 506 and 452 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), FTC/CAW, Jhansi, are hereby quashed.

¶13This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 16.11.2023 Subham High Court of Judicature at Allahabad