Court No. - 69

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 987 of 2023

Applicant :- Zahid And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Romeshwari Prasad

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Kumar Maurya

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

List revised.

Heard Sri Romeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the

applicants, Sri Mahendra Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for

the opposite party no. 2, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for

the State and perused the records.

Office is directed to trace out the vakalatnama of Sri Mahendra

Kumar Maurya and place it on record and make a note about it

in the order sheet.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the applicants Zahid, Smt.Naima@Basso and Shahid,

with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings along with

charge sheet dated 20.6.2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504,

506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, against the applicant no. 1 and 2,

and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.

Act against the applicant no.3, arising out of Case Crime No. 22

of 2020, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut and all its

consequential proceedings on the basis of compromise between

the parties dated 29.9.2022.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is common

ground between the parties that the parties have settled the

dispute amicably out of court. Learned counsel for the applicant

has placed annexure no. 5 to the affidavit in support of this

application, which is copy of compromise dated 29.9.2022. It is

further argued that an order dated 13.8.2022 was passed by the

Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Meerut by

which the case filed by the opposite party no. 2 under the

Domestic Violence Act has been withdrawn by her. Copy of the

said order has been placed before the Court which is annexed at

page-66 of the paper book (annexure no. 6 to the affidavit). It is

argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue

the matter pending in the lower court and is not inclined to give

any evidence against the applicant and therefore the impugned

proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between

the parties.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 admits the

arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and states that

he has no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against

the applicants is quashed.

The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of

settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex

Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of

Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant

Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3)

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4)

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5)

Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013

(83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @

Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and

another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the

parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex

Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for

exercising powers by this Court to quash the entire proceedings,

the charge sheet and all consequential proceedigns as prayed for

by the applicant(s).

The present application is allowed.

The proceedings of the case and the charge sheet are hereby

quashed.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Order Date :- 17.1.2023

Naresh

Digitally signed by :-

NARESH KUMAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad