SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Mahesho And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 August, 2019


?Court No. – 69

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 15541 of 2007

Applicant :- Smt. Mahesho And Others

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

Counsel for Applicant :- P.S.Pundir

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,B.K. Solanki,Vaibhav Kaushik

Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

A joint affidavit filed on behalf of both the parties is taken on record.

Heard Sri P.S.Pundir, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vaibhav Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA- for the State and perused the record brought on record.

This application has been filed under Sectionsection 482 Cr.PC with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings in case no. 4664/IX of 2006(Smt. Anjali Vs. Amit Rathi), under Sectionsection 406 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st,Muzaffar Nagar.

The dispute appears to be between the husband and wife .Submission of he learned counsel for the applicants is that the parties have entered into a compromise.

The matter was taken up by this Court on 15.4.2007 and interim protection was granted in favour of the applicants. Subsequently the matter was referred by this Court oon7.9.2007 to the Mediation Centre. As per Mediation Report dated 8.7.2008 the parties were not wiling for mediation.

In the affidavit it is specifically mentioned that both parties have entered into a compromise on 5.9.2016, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-SA-1. and the said compromise had taken place before the Family Court, Muzafar Nagar and the case has been decreed for divorce on 20.10.2016, copy of the order is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. Now the parties have no grievance as on date against each other.

In view of the above contention this Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:- B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; 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 case.

Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby, quashed.

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 22.8.2019




Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation