Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43492 of 2018 Applicant :- Aakansha Chopra Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
By means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant who is wife of O.P. No.2 has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the complaint case No. 524 of 2015, under section 323, 504, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act., P.S. Nazirabad, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate IIIrd, District Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise entered into between the applicant no.1 and O.P. No.2.
In para 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that with the intervention of the respectable relatives and members of the families the parties have entered into a compromise and a sum of Rs.
3.00 lacs has been agreed to be paid to the applicant as permanent alimony and in settlement of all her claim. The said amount has already been paid to her by three demand drafts of Rs. 1.00 lac each and she has further stated that she does not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings against the opposite parties and has no objection if the proceedings of aforementioned complaint case are quashed.
Learned counsel for opposite parties has also stated that the parties have reached an amicable settlement and a sum of R.s 3.00 lacs have been paid to the applicant in settlement of all her claim and they are living separately pursuant to the divorce decree dated 28.7.2018 and now no dispute or differences exists between them.
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 proceedings of complaint case No. 524 of 2015, under section 323, 504, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the D.P. Act., P.S. Nazirabad, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate IIIrd, District Kanpur Nagar are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 R