Inam Mian And 2 Others v. State Of U.P & Anr.

Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 who has filed his vakalatnama in Court today which is taken on record, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned State counsel and perused the record.

The present application has been filed by the applicants- Inam Mian, Smt. Shahjahan, and Sikandar with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 04.08.2021 in Case No. 4405 of 2021 (State Vs. Inam Mian and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0050 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bareilly pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly on the basis of compromise between the parties, with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicants.

As per office report dated 15.05.2023, in compliance of this Court's order dated 17.4.2023, compliance report of court concerned is on record.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that as the dispute between the parties was compromised, this court directed the applicant (s) to file the compromise deed before the trial court concerned which was to be verified by the court concerned and to send its report to this Court by the next date. In pursuance of the said order, the applicants appeared before the trial court and filed the compromise deed. It is argued that the court concerned vide order dated 29.4.2023 verified the said compromise, copy of the same is on record, as such the proceedings against the applicant(s) may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned counsel for the State admitted the fact of compromise and stated that they have no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicant (s).

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably, the said compromise has been also been verified by the trial court.

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 proceedings as prayed for by the applicant(s).

The cognizance order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed subject to the applicant (s) and the opposite party no.2 shall deposit Rs.5,000/- each before the concerned trial court which shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Authority of the district.