Mohd. Saif Ansari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12531 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohd. Saif Ansari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Shukla,Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Sri Syed Shahid Mustafa, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party no. 2 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 08.12.2022 passed by A.C.J.M.-Vth, Court No. 29, Lucknow and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 5060/2022 filed under Sections 323 and 498-A IPC, Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10085 of 2023 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 16.10.2023 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. It appears from the order dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure No. 3) that the court concerned has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court. For the relief(s) sought, on the basis of compromise, the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409. Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of trial Court dated

28.11.2023 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, and the nature of dispute/crime, which is essentially matrimonial in nature, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, entire proceedings, in issue, are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise. Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in above terms. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concerned Court forthwith. Order Date :- 21.12.2023 Arun/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench