Allahabad High Court
Vipin Rathore And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 January, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2558 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34288 of 2022 Applicant :- Vipin Rathore And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Shaheen Bano,Shahnawaz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ayyaz Khan,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Shahnawaz Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ayyaz Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Vipin Rathore, Lal Bahadur, Ramwati, Anjali, Kapil and Sunil with the prayer to allow this application under 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the summoning order dated 23.8.2022 passed by Civil Judge (SD) FTC/J.M. Pilibhit in Complaint Case No. 321 of 2022 (Smt. Sapna Rathore v. Vipin Rathore and others), under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Madhotanda, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/FTC/ Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit and further with the prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case during the pendency of this application.
4. As per office report dated 17.12.2024, compromise verification report of court concerned is on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a compromise between the parties was referred for verification vide order dated 27.9.2024 passed by this Court which has been duly verified by the court concerned on 21.10.2024 and a report to the said effect has been sent by the court concerned, as such the compromise entered between the parties is duly verified and the proceedings of the present matter be quashed.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. The summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
11. The present application is allowed.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Gaurav Kuls