Allahabad High Court
Sunny Panwar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 March, 2023
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 65 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7048 of 2023 Applicant :- Sunny Panwar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Tripathi,Mandvi Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Rana Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed an affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Anuj Chaudhary, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amit Rana, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 07.09.2021 and entire proceedings of S.T. No. 298 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Sunny and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 43 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 307 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1 and on account of matrimonial discord, instant criminal case was instituted against the applicants, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the families, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their all disputes and differences and have decided to live separately and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of the Court to the compromise application dated 10.01.2023 and as per the compromise, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been agreed to be paid by the applicant no.1 to the opposite party no.2 as a permanent alimony in lieu of all her claims and dues and the said amount had already been deposited in the court below, where proceedings under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act is going-on and the said amount shall be paid to her at the time of final decree.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that all streedhan of opposite party no.2 has been returned back to her. He has next submitted that in view of the said compromise, the entire proceedings be quashed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has filed an affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 and in para 6 of the affidavit, said compromise has been acknowledged and in para 7, opposite party no.2 has categorically stated that she has received back all her streedhan from the applicants and she will receive the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as a permanent alimony in lieu of all her claims and dues at the time of final decree and in para 11, she has further stated that she has no objection, if the entire proceedings are 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 Hon'ble 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, law expounded by Hon'ble 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 learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 298 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Sunny and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 43 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 307 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Meerut, are hereby quashed.
This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 3.3.2023 Nadim