Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16870 of 2019 Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey And 7 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Mahesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opp. party no. 2 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mahesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire Criminal Case No. 22 of 2019 (State Vs. Sushil Kumar Pandey and others) arising out of chargesheet no. 11 of 2018 against the applicant nos. 1 to 6 dated 9.11.2018 as well as chargesheet no. 11A of 2018 against the applicant nos. 7 and 8, under Sections 498A, 506, 504, 323 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sonbhadra, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.
Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 17.11.2018 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the opp. party no.2, therefore, the present case be finally decided.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further with the matter.
In view of the fact that the husband and wife do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 17.11.2018, 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 :- 30.4.2019 Gss