HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 713 of 2009
Applicant :- Amit Kumar Agarwal And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Bharti
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Counter affidavit dated 16.3.2009 filed by the learned counsel for the parties is taken on record.
Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
The present 482 SectionCr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.3120/9 of 2008 (Nidhi Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal and others), under Section 406 I.P.C., P.S. New Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar as well as the order dated 15.9.2008.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the matter which matrimonial in nature has been compromised between the parties.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit dated 16.3.2009, wherein it has been stated that during the pendency of proceedings better sense prevail between the parties who have now entered into an amicable settlement and have decided to live separately and a permanent alimony i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- in the form of draft has been deposited safely in safe custody of Sri Yogesh Kumar, Administrating Officer, Civil Court, Muzaffar Nagar, and the same will be handed over to the opposite party no.2-wife after the decision of all cases between the parties
The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
In the aforesaid cases, the 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 the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.9.2019
Dev/-
