Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 955 of 2017
Applicant :- Nitin Kumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pathak,Amit Rana,Harshit Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Sagar Singh
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Jitendra Singh holding brief of Sri Rajesh Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 8.12.2015 and cognizance order dated 29.3.2016 passed in Case No. 3767 of 2016 arising out of case crime No. 108 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 377, 323, 307 IPC and section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
Today when the case has been taken up, learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 are present. They have informed the Court and that there is matrimonial dispute and the parties have entered into compromise and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid to opposite party no.2 in terms of settlement agreement and rest Rs.12,50,000/- will be paid at the time of quashing the proceedings of Case No.3767 of 2016. The opposite party no.2 has received all her stridhan articles/jewelleries. In para 11 it has been mentioned that on the basis of compromise both the parties filed divorce petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act by mutual consent. It further shows that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC have also been withdrawn.
Sri Jitendra Singh holding brief of Sri Rajesh Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is present before this Court and he has filed counter affidavit. The affidavit is that of opposite party no.3 Smt. Anjul herself. In para 11 it has been mentioned that applicant and opposite party no.3 have duly settled their entire dispute and no further claim exists and that the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed the case against the applicant any further. The opposite party no.2 has no objection if the present application u/s 482 CrPC is allowed and the proceedings are quashed in terms of the compromise.
Thus, keeping in view the fact that compromise has been taken place between the parties and in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana), J.T. and 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
The present application is allowed as prayed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 SP