HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 20373 of 2019
Applicant :- Dharmesh Yadav And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII, J.
Supplementary affidavit annexing the verification report filed today is taken on record.
Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ashutosh Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of applicants, is also taken on record.
Vakalatnama of Shri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate, on behalf of respondent no. 2, filed today is also taken on record.
Heard Shri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, and ShriAnil Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the state.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 15.01.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 2928 of 2017 – (Nitish Singh Vs. Dharmesh Yadav and others), Police Station – Kasna, District – Gautam Budh Nagar, under Section 406 I.P.C.
Pursuant to order dated 26.08.2019, the parties appeared before the court below on 18.09.2019 for verification of settlement / compromise, who were duly identified by their counsel’s, while verifying the compromise / settlement dated 17.09.2019.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that it is a matrimonial dispute and all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in SectionGian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, SectionB.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and SectionMadan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, opposite party no.2 has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.
Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. is allowed.
The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2928 of 2017 under Section 406, Police Station – Kasna, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, against the applicants are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Order Date :- 16.10.2019
Vinod.
