Others v. State of U.P. and

1. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sachin Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 05.12.2022 passed in S.T. No. 1108 of 2022 (State vs. Sandeep and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 38 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 328 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act (against applicant no.1) and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act (against applicant nos.2 and 3), Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur, on the basis of compromise dated 20.03.2025.

3. Learned counsel of the applicants submits that earlier the applicant has filed an Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 12346 of 2025 (Sandeep Kumar and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), which was disposed of vide order dated

15.04.2025 with following observations: "1. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sheetla Prasad, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 05.12.2022 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C. (crime against woman), Saharanpur as well as entire proceeding of S.T. No.1108 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 328 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Saharanpur. 2 NA528 No. 39140 of 2025

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature and both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and entered into compromise. The aforesaid compromise dated 20.03.2025 is reduced in written compromise and also annexed at page 59 of the affidavit. He further submitted that the aforesaid compromise has already been filed before the court below. It has been requested that the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of aforesaid compromise.

4. Though this fact has not been disputed by learned AGA but he has raised a preliminary objection that the aforesaid proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. The aforesaid compromise should be verified by the court below before quashing the impugned proceeding.

5. In view of the above, the court below is directed to verify the aforesaid compromise within a period of two months, from the date of presentation of a copy of this order, after summoning the parties and after verification, the court below will dispose of the impugned proceeding, in accordance with law.

6. For a period of two months or till verification of compromise, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

7. However, the parties are at liberty to file a fresh application under Section 528 BNSS to quash the impugned proceeding on the basis of verified copy of compromise, if need arises.

8. With the aforesaid direction, the present application is disposed of. "

4. In terms of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the parties have appeared before the trial court concerned on 12.08.2025 and in presence of the parties, the trial court has verified the compromise executed between the parties. Certified copy of the compromise as well as its order of verification has been annexed as Annexure '6' to the instant application. As per the aforesaid compromise, the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 have settled all their matrimonial disputes amicably and both of them are living together as husband and wife. No dispute remains between them. In view thereof, the opposite party no.2 has agreed to withdraw all the cases against the applicants herein. On the basis of the aforesaid compromise, learned counsel for applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case against the applicants.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case learned A.G.A., for the State does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the instant proceedings in the light of the compromise, which is duly verified in presence of the parties by the trial court. 3 NA528 No. 39140 of 2025

6. Having heard the submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are the husband and wife respectively. There was a matrimonial dispute between them due to which the opposite party no.2 had lodged the F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 38 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 328 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. During the pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties have settled their disputes amicably and a compromise dated 20.03.2025 was executed between the parties. Thereupon, the parties have filed an application under Section 528 BNSS No. 12346 of 2025, which has been disposed of while directing the parties to appear before the trial court for its verification. Accordingly, vide order dated 12.08.2025, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, has verified the compromise in presence of the parties and as per the compromise the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 are living together as husband and wife. In view of the facts and circumstances, since it was a matrimonial dispute between the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2, which has been amicably settled and they have decided to live together as husband and wife, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the criminal proceeding pending against the applicants herein and due to the aforesaid compromise there are very remote and bleak chances of the conviction of the applicants. Further, with the aforesaid settlement of matrimonial dispute, peace will prevail not only in the families of the parties but in society at large.

7. Thus, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another : (2012) 10 SCC 303; Prabatbhai Aahir Alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and Another : (2017) 9 SCC 641; Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466 and B.S.Joshi and Other vs. State of Haryana and Another : (2003) 4 SCC 67, the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings in S.T. No. 1108 of 2022 (State vs. Sandeep and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 38 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 328 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act (against applicant no.1) and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act (against applicant nos.2 and 3), Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur, are hereby quashed. October 8, 2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

1. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sachin Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 05.12.2022 passed in S.T. No. 1108 of 2022 (State vs. Sandeep and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 38 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 328 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act (against applicant no.1) and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act (against applicant nos.2 and 3), Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur, on the basis of compromise dated 20.03.2025.

3. Learned counsel of the applicants submits that earlier the applicant has filed an Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 12346 of 2025 (Sandeep Kumar and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), which was disposed of vide order dated

15.04.2025 with following observations: "1. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sheetla Prasad, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 05.12.2022 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C. (crime against woman), Saharanpur as well as entire proceeding of S.T. No.1108 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 328 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Saharanpur. 2 NA528 No. 39140 of 2025

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature and both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and entered into compromise. The aforesaid compromise dated 20.03.2025 is reduced in written compromise and also annexed at page 59 of the affidavit. He further submitted that the aforesaid compromise has already been filed before the court below. It has been requested that the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of aforesaid compromise.

4. Though this fact has not been disputed by learned AGA but he has raised a preliminary objection that the aforesaid proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. The aforesaid compromise should be verified by the court below before quashing the impugned proceeding.

5. In view of the above, the court below is directed to verify the aforesaid compromise within a period of two months, from the date of presentation of a copy of this order, after summoning the parties and after verification, the court below will dispose of the impugned proceeding, in accordance with law.

6. For a period of two months or till verification of compromise, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

7. However, the parties are at liberty to file a fresh application under Section 528 BNSS to quash the impugned proceeding on the basis of verified copy of compromise, if need arises.

8. With the aforesaid direction, the present application is disposed of. "

4. In terms of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the parties have appeared before the trial court concerned on 12.08.2025 and in presence of the parties, the trial court has verified the compromise executed between the parties. Certified copy of the compromise as well as its order of verification has been annexed as Annexure '6' to the instant application. As per the aforesaid compromise, the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 have settled all their matrimonial disputes amicably and both of them are living together as husband and wife. No dispute remains between them. In view thereof, the opposite party no.2 has agreed to withdraw all the cases against the applicants herein. On the basis of the aforesaid compromise, learned counsel for applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case against the applicants.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case learned A.G.A., for the State does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the instant proceedings in the light of the compromise, which is duly verified in presence of the parties by the trial court. 3 NA528 No. 39140 of 2025

6. Having heard the submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. The applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are the husband and wife respectively. There was a matrimonial dispute between them due to which the opposite party no.2 had lodged the F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 38 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 328 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. During the pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties have settled their disputes amicably and a compromise dated 20.03.2025 was executed between the parties. Thereupon, the parties have filed an application under Section 528 BNSS No. 12346 of 2025, which has been disposed of while directing the parties to appear before the trial court for its verification. Accordingly, vide order dated 12.08.2025, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, has verified the compromise in presence of the parties and as per the compromise the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 are living together as husband and wife. In view of the facts and circumstances, since it was a matrimonial dispute between the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2, which has been amicably settled and they have decided to live together as husband and wife, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the criminal proceeding pending against the applicants herein and due to the aforesaid compromise there are very remote and bleak chances of the conviction of the applicants. Further, with the aforesaid settlement of matrimonial dispute, peace will prevail not only in the families of the parties but in society at large.

7. Thus, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another : (2012) 10 SCC 303; Prabatbhai Aahir Alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and Another : (2017) 9 SCC 641; Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466 and B.S.Joshi and Other vs. State of Haryana and Another : (2003) 4 SCC 67, the instant application is allowed and the entire proceedings in S.T. No. 1108 of 2022 (State vs. Sandeep and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 38 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 328 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act (against applicant no.1) and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act (against applicant nos.2 and 3), Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur, are hereby quashed. October 8, 2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)