Allahabad High Court
Sharad Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 19 July, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20047 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sharad Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Pandey,Neeraj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hanumant Lal Srivastava,Indrajeet Shukla,Pradeep Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Shri Naveen Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Vishwas Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent nos.1 to 3, Shri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned FIR dated 28.07.2020 bearing FIR No.0214 of 2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court and mediation between the parties has been successful. Copy of mediation report is annexed with the writ petition. He further submits that as per settlement arrived at between the parties, according to Mediation report dated 08.10.2021, a total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was to be paid by petitioner to respondent no.4, out of which Rs.5,00,000/- has already been paid to her on 08.10.2021 by way of demand draft and balance of Rs.1,00,000/- has now been paid by the petitioner to respondent no.4. The said fact has been admitted by learned Counsel for respondent no.4.
Learned Counsel for respondent no.4 could not dispute the aforesaid facts and he states that the impugned FIR be quashed as he has no objection to it, subject to the condition that all the terms which have been laid down in the compromise have been complied with. In retaliation to this learned Counsel for the petitioners states that all the terms and conditions have been complied with.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012)10 SCC 303 and has submitted that the petitioners and respondent no.4 have settled the dispute and as such respondent no.4 does not want to press the present case against the petitioners. The respondent no.4 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the petitioners and in view of the compromise as no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From a perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
In this regard the view taken by the Apex court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the F.I.R. as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.
Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence the F.I.R. of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
The present petition stands allowed.
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 19.7.2022 Anand Sri./-