Allahabad High Court
Smt. Harpyari And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98424 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10539 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Harpyari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Bind,Mohammad Zafar Yab Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel fro the opposite party no. 2, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit today in Court which is taken on record.
4. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 22.8.2015 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2051 of 2015, State vs. Netrapal Singh and others, bearing case crime no. 236 of 2015, u/s 323, 504, 506, 352, 452 I.P.C., P.S.- Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad, pending before the A.C.J.M., Farrukhabad.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of court and on the basis of compromise the present Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been before this Court in which an order for verification of the compromise was passed on 6.4.2023. It is argued that in compliance of the order dated 6.4.2023 of this Court, the parties have filed the said compromise application along with affidavit and the order of this Court before the concerned court for its verification after which the concerned court has verified the said compromise vide its order dated 02.5.2023, copy of the said order is annexure no. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the trial court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the applicants and therefore the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties.
6. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 could not dispute the factum of compromise which was duly verified by the concerned trial court.
7. 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.
8. 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 charge sheet dated 22.8.2015 as well as entire proceeding of the case as prayed for by the applicant(s).
9. The present application is allowed.
10. The charge sheet dated 22.8.2015 as well as entire proceeding of the said case are hereby quashed.
(Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 8.5.2023 {Naresh}