Court No. - 3
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19860 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sadin And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sitaram Yadav learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 18.06.2018 lodged in Case Crime No.0521 of 2018, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jani, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the parties have entered into compromise, copy of the compromise deed is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the writ petiton. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) and has submitted that since the mater has been compromised between the parties amicably, hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution of the petitioners in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Sri Sitaram Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 does not want to proceed with the matter.
In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise deed dated 11.07.2018 therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
Thus, 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, Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014), Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another, J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Sartaj