Aradhana Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45118 of 2023 Applicant :- Aradhana Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari,Rabindra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Mohd. I. Khan and Mohd. Abdul Moid, Advocates, who appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 27.07.2017; cognizance order dated 31.10.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.1689 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Aradhana Patel) arising out of Case Crime No. 199 of 2017, under Sections 507, 504, 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 66 (C) of I.T. Act, 2000, P.S. Soraon, District Prayagraj.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant challenged the aforesaid proceedings by way of filing 482 Application No.27081 of 2023 before this Hon. Court and this Court vide order dated 27.07.2023 after hearing the parties and considering that parties entered into compromise sent the matter before the trial court for verification of the parties.

¶4Pursuant to the said order dated 27.07.2023, 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-9 to the application.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled their private and civil 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. and counsel for the opposite party no. 2 do not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

¶7In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant 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 Case No.1689 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Aradhana Patel) arising out of Case Crime No. 199 of 2017, under Sections 507, 504, 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 66 (C) of I.T. Act, 2000, P.S. Soraon, District Prayagraj, are hereby quashed.

¶9This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 12.12.2023 Meenu Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad