Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21658 of 2019 Applicant :- Monis And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Perdeep Kumar Vishnoi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Kulveer Singh, learned counsel on behalf of victim, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Bishnoi, learned counsel on behalf of applicants, Sri Kulveer Singh, learned counsel on behalf of victim and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.
Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of victim namely Smt. Sana Parveen/daughter of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash/stay the entire proceedings of Case No. 651 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 203 of 2018, under sections 498A, 279, 323, 504 IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nagina, District Bijnor pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, Bijnor as the parties have settled their dispute outside the court, they are living together as husband and wife and nothing remains in between the parties.
The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 3, 4 and 5 of the short counter affidavit, filed by Shri Kulveer Singh, learned counsel for the victim/daughter of opposite party no.2.
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.
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 complaint 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 :- 30.5.2019 Arti