U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the impugned order dated 25.10.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, in Criminal Case No. 01 of 2013, captioned as Viaks Singh Rana vs. Smt. Mamta Rana & another and the order dated 12.12.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Case No. 583 of 2012, Smt. Mamta Rana and others vs. Vikas Singh Rana and others.

2. Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were initiated against the applicant at the behest of respondent no. 2. An interim order directing the applicant to pay monthly maintenance allowance worth Rs. 5000/- was passed by the courts below. Aggrieved against the same, present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant, who stated in para 9 of his application that he was always, and is, ready and willing to keep his wife and child with him.

3. A compounding application being CRMA No. 1269 of 2014 has been filed by the parties, to indicate that they have buried their differences and settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is supported by affidavits of Vikas Singh Rana (petitioner-husband) and the respondent no. 2 (wife). Both, applicant and the respondent, are present in person, duly identified by their counsels Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. V.D.Bisen, respectively. Both of them stated before this Court that the dispute has been settled amicably with the intervention of elderly members of the family and now they have decided to live together. In fact, they are living together as husband and wife.

4. Compounding Application No. 1269 of 2014 is thus allowed to secure the ends of justice and as a consequence thereof, the impugned order dated 25.10.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, in Criminal Case No. 01 of 2013, captioned as Viaks Singh Rana vs. Smt. Mamta Rana and another and the order dated 12.12.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Case No. 583 of 2012, Smt. Mamta Rana and others vs. Vikas Singh Rana and others, are hereby quashed against the applicant.

5. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2014 (2) N.C.C. 385

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2011

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Appellant

Versus

SANJAY – Respondent

WITH Criminal Appeal No. 2105 of 2013

JAYSUKH SAVANJI SHINGALIA – Appellant

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. – Respondents

WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 2108-2112 of 2013

MALABHAI SHALABHAI RABARI & ORS. – Appellants

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Respondents

WITH Criminal Appeal No. 2107 of 2013

KALUBHAI DULABHAI KHACHAR – Appellant

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. – Respondents

WITH Criminal Appeal No. 2106 of 2013

SONJDABHAI HANUBHAI BHARWAD – Appellant

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. – Respondents

Decided on : 04.09.2014

Cases referred :

1. Sengol, Charles and K. Kannan, etc.etc. vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2012 Cri LJ 1705, 2012(2) CTC 369.

2. M. Palanisamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (4) CTC 1.

3. Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1.

4. M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others (1997) 1 SCC 388.

5. Intellectuals Forum vs. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549.

6. Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532.

7. State of M.P. vs. Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88.

8. Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440.

9. Maqbool Hussain vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325.

10. State of Bombay vs. S.L. Apte, AIR 1961 SC 578.

11. T.S. Baliah vs. ITO, AIR 1969 SC 701.

12. Collector of Customs vs. Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia, 1988 (3) SCC 467.

13. Leo Roy Frey vs. Thomas Dana, AIR 1958 SC 119.

14. State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan and others, (1988) 4 SCC 655.

15. State of Rajasthan vs. Hat Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 152.

16. Avtar Singh vs. State o