Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2588 of 2018 Applicant :- Shailendra Kashayap And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 1 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Rinki Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the case no. 26 of 2009 (State vs. Shailendra Kashyap and others) u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506, 328, 316 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of M.M. First, Kanpur Nagar.
Heard Mrs. Rinki Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by counsel for both parties that the present proceeding arising out of matrimonial dispute. It is further submitted that divorce between them had already taken place by order of civil court. Now they have settled all their disputes and have arrived at compromise and in this behalf a joint compromise by the parties in the court of Family Judge, Sahadara, Karkardooma, Delhi has been filed in which parties had agreed for one time settlement of Rs. 10 lacs to be paid by the applicant to opposite party no. 2, out of which Rs. 6 lacs have already been paid, remaining amount of Rs. 4 lacs is being paid today by way of demand draft no. 502094 and 502257 dated 31.1.2018 of Rs. 2 lacs respectively. The said demand drafts have been handed over to opposite party no. 2 in the court. The applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 are present before the Court and they have been duly identified by their counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have settled their disputes amicably, the proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of U.P., (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties have been settled, the opposite party has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be quashed.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record including the joint affidavit filed today on behalf of the parties.
In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands.
Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
In view of the above, the application is allowed.
The entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed in terms of compromise.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Dhirendra/