Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 923 of 2018 Applicant :- Agent Sharma And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Jagdish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Daya Shanker Pandey,Kamal Kumar
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Supplementary affidavit, filed by counsel for the applicants today in Court, is taken on record.
Short counter affidavit, filed by counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 today in Court, is also taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri D.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 11.07.2017 in Complaint Case No. 903 of 2017 (Smt. Brijbala Vs. Santosh Sharma and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 392 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Patiyali, District- Kasganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and they have settled their all disputes and differences and in this regard, a settlement agreement has been made between the parties. As per the settlement agreement, a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- has been paid to the Opposite Party No.2 by the applicants in full and final settlement of her all claims and permanent alimony and both the parties have decided to live separately.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that in view of the settlement made between the parties, the entire proceedings of the present case be quashed.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has also stated that the parties have reached an amicable settlement and as per the settlement agreement, a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- has been received by the Opposite Party No.2 in full and final settlement in all her claims and now, she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicants and she has no objection, if the present 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 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. 903 of 2017 (Smt. Brijbala Vs. Santosh Sharma and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 392 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Patiyali, District- Kasganj are hereby quashed.
The application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Nadim