Shekhar and others v. State of U.P. and another), which was disposed of vide order dated

2005 (State vs. Mishri Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 970 of 2005, under Sections 363, 366, 379, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), New Court No. 1/ACJM, Mordabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 had married to the daughter of opposite party no.2 without consent of opposite party no.2, due to which the instant complaint case has been filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicants herein. Out of the said wedlock, three daughters born and subsequently the opposite party no.2 has also accepted the marriage of her daughter with the applicant no.1 and a compromise was executed between the parties during the pendency of the instant case, on the basis of which the applicants had earlier approached this Court by filing an Application under Section 482 No. 47074 of 2023 (Shekhar Singh @ Shekhar and others vs. State of U.P. and another), which was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2024 with the following observation: "1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1 and Sri Nishant Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.09.2005 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10895 of 2005 (State Vs. Mishri Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 970 of 2005, under Sections 363, 366, 379, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Moradabad, pending before the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) New Court No.4, Moradabad, on the basis of compromise dated 17.01.2024 entered between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the matter arises out of matrimonial discord between the husband and wife. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 17.01.2024 has been annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

6. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicant may approach the concerned court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

7. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with an application for verification of compromise deed so filed as well as a certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not.

8. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

9. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of."

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order and protection granted by this Court, the parties have again executed a fresh compromise dated 17.01.2024, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-7 to the instant application and thereupon an application was moved on

15.02.2024 by the applicant no.1 before the trial court concerned for verification of compromise in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court. Vide order dated 15.02.2024, the trial court verified the compromise executed between the parties in presence of the parties. The certified copy of the order verifying the compromise as well as the application for verification has been annexed as annexure-9 to the instant application. Thus, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the marriage of the applicant no.1 with the daughter of the opposite party no.2 has been now accepted by opposite party no.2 and out of the said wedlock, three daughters born. The matter has now been amicably settled between the parties. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant case.

5. Learned AGA submits that since the instant FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 due to the marriage by the applicant with the daughter of opposite party no.2 without her consent and now the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Thereafter a compromise was executed, which has been duly verified by the trial court. In view thereof, learned AGA does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the of the entire proceeding against the applicants.

6. Having heard the submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record, it is apparent that in the instant case an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on

20.07.2005 alleging therein that the applicant herein had kidnapped the minor daughter of the opposite party no.2 who was aged about 17 years. Thereupon the instant case was registered under Sections 363, 366, 379, 506 IPC. As per the secondary school examination certificate, the date of birth of Pooja Rani, the daughter of opposite party no.2 is 04.01.1986. Thus on the date of incident the daughter of opposite party no.2 was major. Subsequent thereto, the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 had married out of their free will. The marriage has been successful and out of the said wedlock, three daughter born. Since the daughter of opposite party no.2 was a major major girl on the date of incident itself and she had eloped with applicant herein out her own free will and married him, therefore, no offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC can be said to have been made out in the instant case and during the pendency of the case after sufficiently long period, the parties have settled their disputes amicably. A compromise was executed, which has been duly verified by the trial court concerned as per the directions issued by this Court.

7. In view thereof, this Court finds force in submission of learned counsel for the applicants. In view of the settlement / compromise, which has been duly verified, peace will prevail in the society. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceeding pending against the applicants specifically when no case under Sections 363 and 366 IPC is made out in the instant case and the parties have settled their disputes amicably.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : Prabatbhai Aahir Alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and Another , (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the instant application deserves to be allowed.

9. In view thereof, the instant application is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10895 of 2005 (State vs. Mishri Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 970 of 2005, under Sections 363, 366, 379, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Moradabad, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

2005 (State vs. Mishri Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 970 of 2005, under Sections 363, 366, 379, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), New Court No. 1/ACJM, Mordabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 had married to the daughter of opposite party no.2 without consent of opposite party no.2, due to which the instant complaint case has been filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicants herein. Out of the said wedlock, three daughters born and subsequently the opposite party no.2 has also accepted the marriage of her daughter with the applicant no.1 and a compromise was executed between the parties during the pendency of the instant case, on the basis of which the applicants had earlier approached this Court by filing an Application under Section 482 No. 47074 of 2023 (Shekhar Singh @ Shekhar and others vs. State of U.P. and another), which was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2024 with the following observation: "1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1 and Sri Nishant Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.09.2005 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10895 of 2005 (State Vs. Mishri Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 970 of 2005, under Sections 363, 366, 379, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Moradabad, pending before the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) New Court No.4, Moradabad, on the basis of compromise dated 17.01.2024 entered between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the matter arises out of matrimonial discord between the husband and wife. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 17.01.2024 has been annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

6. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicant may approach the concerned court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

7. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with an application for verification of compromise deed so filed as well as a certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not.

8. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

9. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of."

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order and protection granted by this Court, the parties have again executed a fresh compromise dated 17.01.2024, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-7 to the instant application and thereupon an application was moved on

15.02.2024 by the applicant no.1 before the trial court concerned for verification of compromise in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court. Vide order dated 15.02.2024, the trial court verified the compromise executed between the parties in presence of the parties. The certified copy of the order verifying the compromise as well as the application for verification has been annexed as annexure-9 to the instant application. Thus, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the marriage of the applicant no.1 with the daughter of the opposite party no.2 has been now accepted by opposite party no.2 and out of the said wedlock, three daughters born. The matter has now been amicably settled between the parties. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant case.

5. Learned AGA submits that since the instant FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 due to the marriage by the applicant with the daughter of opposite party no.2 without her consent and now the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Thereafter a compromise was executed, which has been duly verified by the trial court. In view thereof, learned AGA does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the of the entire proceeding against the applicants.

6. Having heard the submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record, it is apparent that in the instant case an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on

20.07.2005 alleging therein that the applicant herein had kidnapped the minor daughter of the opposite party no.2 who was aged about 17 years. Thereupon the instant case was registered under Sections 363, 366, 379, 506 IPC. As per the secondary school examination certificate, the date of birth of Pooja Rani, the daughter of opposite party no.2 is 04.01.1986. Thus on the date of incident the daughter of opposite party no.2 was major. Subsequent thereto, the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 had married out of their free will. The marriage has been successful and out of the said wedlock, three daughter born. Since the daughter of opposite party no.2 was a major major girl on the date of incident itself and she had eloped with applicant herein out her own free will and married him, therefore, no offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC can be said to have been made out in the instant case and during the pendency of the case after sufficiently long period, the parties have settled their disputes amicably. A compromise was executed, which has been duly verified by the trial court concerned as per the directions issued by this Court.

7. In view thereof, this Court finds force in submission of learned counsel for the applicants. In view of the settlement / compromise, which has been duly verified, peace will prevail in the society. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceeding pending against the applicants specifically when no case under Sections 363 and 366 IPC is made out in the instant case and the parties have settled their disputes amicably.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : Prabatbhai Aahir Alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and Another , (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the instant application deserves to be allowed.

9. In view thereof, the instant application is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10895 of 2005 (State vs. Mishri Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 970 of 2005, under Sections 363, 366, 379, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Moradabad, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)