Emmanuel Masih and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37579 of 2023 Applicant :- Emmanuel Masih And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subham Singh Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶1Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed today in Court, which is taken on record.

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

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no.1 is the husband and applicant nos.2 & 3 are parents-in-law of opposite party no.2 and on account of matrimonial discord, the instant criminal case was instituted against the applicants, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the family and the society, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their all 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 compromise application dated

25.08.2023 supported by an affidavit, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 5 to this application.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that pursuant to the said compromise, the parties have restored their relationship and are living together as husband and wife along with their minor child and are leading a happy married life.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said compromise made between the parties, the entire proceedings be quashed.

¶7Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has filed an affidavit on her behalf and in para 6 of the said affidavit, the compromise has been acknowledged and it has been further stated that parties are now living together as husband and wife and are leading a happy married life. Further in para 7, it has been stated 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 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.

(vi). State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688.

¶10Wherein 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.

¶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 present case.

¶12Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 6436 of 2020 (State Vs. Emmanuel Masih and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0061 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Meerut, are hereby quashed.

¶13This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Nadim High Court of Judicature at Allahabad