Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42071 of 2019 Applicant :- Nandan Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjeet Singh
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama along with an affidavit on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Ranjeet Singh, 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 summoning order dated 10.05.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 495 of 2017 (Priyanka Singh Vs. Nandan Kumar and others), under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Bhamora, District Bareilly.
In para 4 of the affidavit filed today, it has been stated that the parties have entered in an amicable settlement and as per the agreement made between the parties, a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- has been paid to the Opposite Party No.2 Priyanka Singh and the parties have decided to live separately.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that he has no objection, if the entire proceedings of the present case are quashed against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and they have settled all their disputes and differences and a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- has been agreed to be paid to the Opposite Party No.2 Priyanka Singh as a permanent alimony in respect of all her claims and the entire amount has already been paid to her, as such, in view of the amicable settlement made between the parties, proceedings of the present case be 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. 495 of 2017 (Priyanka Singh Vs. Nandan Kumar and others), under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Bhamora, District Bareilly are hereby quashed.
The application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Nadim