SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abhishek Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 March, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 8924 of 2019

Applicant :- Abhishek Verma

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Sri I.P. Yadav, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1872 of 2019 (State Vs. Abhishek Verma) under section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Bijnor in connection with impugned charge-sheet dated 3.9.2016 in Case Crime No. 53 of 2015, under section 498A, 377, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor on the ground of compromise.

Learned counsel for the applicant contend that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 14.2.2019 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) and has submitted that since the mater has been compromised between the parties amicably, hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution of the applicant in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the opp. party no.2, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further with the matter.

In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 14.2.2019, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014), Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another,J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

The present application is accordingly allowed.

Order Date :- 12.3.2019

Masarrat

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2019 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh