Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38228 of 2011 Applicant :- Harish And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.K. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Amit Daga
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.
Heard Sri S.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record brought on record.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2335 of 2011 (Smt. Mithilesh Kumari Vs. Harish and others), under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar as well as summoning order dated 12.9.2011, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that as on date there exists no dispute between the parties and the matter has been amicably settled between them and they are living separately to each other.
It appears that the averments made in paragraph no.8 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants of which there is no denial on the part of learned counsel for the opposite party.
In view of the above contention this Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:- B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
In the aforesaid cases, 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 the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 IA