Manoj Kumar Agarwal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17011 of 2022 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Agarwal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Tiwari,Kiran Tiwari,Virendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Manoj Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶1Heard Sri M. C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶2The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 01.12.2021, entire proceedings of Case No.9419 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.359 of 2021, impugned cognizance order dated 27.04.2022 under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-New Agra, District-Agra.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is matrimonial discord. Applicants are in-laws of opposite party No.2 and the husband of opposite party No.2 is no more. Both the parties have entered into compromise. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated

07.07.2022 referred the matter to the trial court/CJM, Agra, the CJM, Agra vide his report dated 26.07.2022 submitted that parties and compromise deed has been verified by their counsels. Informant/opposite party No.2 is living separately from her in-laws and she does not want to continue the proceedings against the applicants.

¶4Learned 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 parties, entire proceedings against the applicants be quashed.

¶5Learned 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.

¶6Learned 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.

¶7Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶8The 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.

¶9Considering 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.

¶10Accordingly, the entire proceedings against the applicants in Case No.9419 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.359 of 2021, impugned cognizance order dated 27.04.2022, under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-New Agra, District-Agra is hereby quashed.

¶11This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 11.12.2023 Nitin Verma High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad