Allahabad High Court
Shafik And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 April, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7668 of 2023 Applicant :- Shafik And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Shiromani Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri K.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to allow this application under 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned charge sheet no.120 of 2022 dated 25.6.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 11/25.7.2022 in Case No.5389 of 2022 in S.T. No.266 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2022, u/s 323, 504, 376, 494 I.P.C. and of the Protection of Muslim Mahila Act, P.S. Azeem Nagar, Rampur pending before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Rampur and further with the prayer to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order passed in the aforesaid case.
4. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
5. As per office report dated 17.4.2023, in compliance of this Court's order dated 1.3.2023, compliance report of court concerned is on record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature as the opposite party no.2 was married with applicant no.1 around 14 years back and the FIR was lodged on 10.5.2022 against the applicants. It is argued that applicants and opp. party No.2 have compromised the dispute and decided to live separately. It is argued that as the dispute between the parties was compromised, this court directed the applicant (s) to file the compromise deed before the trial court concerned which was to be verified by the court concerned and to send its report to this Court by the next date. In pursuance of the said order, the applicants appeared before the trial court and filed the compromise deed. It is argued that the court concerned vide order dated 20.3.2023 verified the said compromise, copy of the same is on record, as such the proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned counsel for the State admitted the fact of compromise and stated that they have no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicant (s).
8. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably, the said compromise has been also been verified by the trial court.
9. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (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) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.
10. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicant(s).
11. The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
12. The present application is allowed.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Gaurav