Allahabad High Court
Wasim And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 5 August, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 2140
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11343 of 2021 Applicant :- Wasim And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pankaj Srivastava Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Learned counsel for the applicants states that case crime number has wrongly been mentioned in the prayer clause of the application and the same may be read as Case Crime No. 124 of 2017 in place of Case Crime No. 24 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of the application and the Case Crime No. 24 of 2017 be read as Case Crime No. 124 of 2017.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 10.03.2021 and entire proceedings of Case No. 1515 of 2018 (State Vs. Wasim and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 124 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, instant criminal proceedings has been initiated against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that with the intervention of the respected members of both the families, applicants and the opposite party no.2 have compromised the matter and they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that in terms of the settlement, a compromise deed dated 05.03.2021 has also been drawn, in which, it is stated that a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- has been paid and all her household articles have been returned back to opposite party no.2 by the applicants, as such, entire proceedings, initiated against the applicants, be quashed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also filed an affidavit and in para 3 and 5 of the said affidavit, opposite party no.2 has stated she has received a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- from the applicants and all her household articles has been returned back to her as a permanent alimony and with the intervention of the respected members of both the families, they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them and now, no dispute remains between them and she does not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicants and also, she has no objection, if the entire criminal proceedings, initiated against the applicants, be quashed.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of 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. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
Wherein 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 entire proceedings of Case No. 1515 of 2018 (State Vs. Wasim and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, are hereby quashed.
This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021 Nadim