Satyendra and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38720 of 2023 Applicant :- Satyendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sabhapati Tiwari Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶1Shri Sabhapati Tiwari, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama as well as 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 Sabhapati Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶3This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash summoning order dated 11.08.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 110 of 2015 (Ramadevi Vs. Satyenra and others), under Sections 392, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Phaphund, District Auraiya, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Anti Dakaiti Court, Auraiya.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that opposite party no.2 is the mother of applicant no.1 and mother-in-law of applicant no.2 and on account of partition dispute between mother and son, the instant criminal case was instituted against the applicants, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of the family and society, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their all disputes and differences in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of this Court to the compromise deed dated

04.10.2023 drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to this application.

¶6Learned 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 mother and son, entire proceedings against the applicants be quashed.

¶7Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has filed a counter affidavit wherein in the additional facts, it has been stated that the dispute between the mother and son has already been amicably settled and now they are living together as a family. It has been further submitted, on instructions, that opposite party no.2 has no objection if the entire proceedings are quashed.

¶8Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9This Court is not unmindful of the judgement of the 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.

¶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 above mentioned case.

¶11Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 110 of 2015 (Ramadevi Vs. Satyenra and others), under Sections 392, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Phaphund, District Auraiya, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Anti Dakaiti Court, Auraiya, are hereby quashed.

¶12This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 21.11.2023/Subham High Court of Judicature at Allahabad