Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 599 (ALL)

Matloob v. State of U. P.

2016-02-19

RAMESH SINHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants,Sri Manish Dev, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of case no.5647/IX of 2014 (State Vs. Matloob and others), in pursuance of charge sheet dated 30.8.2014 in case crime no.973 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., District Muzaffar Nagar. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have earlier approached this Court by means of filing a Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No.27584 of 2015, which was disposed by this Court vide order dated 14.9.2015 and the matter was sent to the Court below to verify the fact of compromise, copy of which has been annexed at page-18 of the application. Thereafter, in compliance of the Court's order dated 14.9.2015, both the parties appeared before the court below, on which the learned Magistrate verified the compromise entered into between the parties and prepared a report dated 6.10.2015, certified copy of which has been annexed at page-39 of the application, hence the proceeding against the applicants be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicants and opp. party No.2 have compromised the dispute and as such opp. party No.2 does not want to press the present case against the applicants. 5. Learned AGA has stated that he has no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicants. 6. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably. 7. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) & Yogendra Yadav Vs. 6. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably. 7. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) & Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant finds force that this court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceeding as the dispute being matrimonial in nature and have been amicably settled between the parties. 8. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence the proceeding of the aforesaid case hereby quashed. 9. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. 10. It is made clear that opp. party no.2, if have any grievance against this order, he may move an appropriate application within three months from today. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed.