Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 431 (ALL)

Rajendra v. State Of U. P.

2010-02-02

DASU RAM AZAD

body2010
JUDGMENT: Dasu Ram Azad, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. and perused the material placed on record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceedings in Case No. 6411 of 2006; State Versus Rajendra and others under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Tajganj, District Agra pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. On 29.4.2008 when the matter came up before this Court, this Court was pleased to refer the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court. It was also ordered that till then no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. 3. A supplementary affidavit sworn by Rajendra, applicant no. 1 has been filed in para 5 of which, it is stated? that the parties have entered into compromise and all the differences and disputes between the parties have been amicably settled by the interference of the relatives. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2003 (46) A.C.C. 779 S.C. and in the case of Ruchi Agrawal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others, reported in 2004 (3) J.I.C.769 S.C.. The Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the proceedings of criminal case on the basis of the compromise filed between the parties mainly on the ground that no lawful purpose would be served by continuance of the proceedings between the parties. 5. In view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the proceedings of? Case No. 6411 of 2006; State Versus Rajendra and others under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Tajganj, District Agra pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra are hereby quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned for information and its compliance within a period of 15 days from the date a certified copy of this order is issued to him. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned for information and its compliance within a period of 15 days from the date a certified copy of this order is issued to him. 7. It is stated at the Bar that since the oppostite party did not appear before the Mediation Center, therefore the amount deposited by the applicants before the Mediation Center may be refunded to the applicants. 8. In this view of the matter, the amount desposited by the applicants may be refunded to them.? 9. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of finally.