HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36351 of 2016 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Shivam Dubey, Learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Manish Sharma for the opposite party no.2 and Learned AGA for the State. 2. Challenge in the present Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to the proceeding of Case No.9237 of 2016 (State vs. Raj Kumar and others) including Charge Sheet No.73 of 2014 dated 26.06.2014 arising out of Case Crime No.35 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the DP Act, P.S Mahila Thana, District Meerut pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. 3. On 04.04.2023, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 are present. They have submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise. The dispute is matrimonial. As some of the sections involved are non compoundable, hence, the trial court be directed to verify the compromise deed of the parties. As the dispute is matrimonial, the compromise between the parties would not affect the society adversely and some of the sections involved are non compoundable, hence, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court within 15 days from today alongwith their compromise deed. If the parties appear before the trial court within the time stipulated, the trial court shall verify the said compromise deed, pass a verification order thereon and transmit the certified copy of the verified compromise deed alongwith the certified copy of the verification order passed thereon, to this Court within 15 days thereafter. List on 31.05.2023. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shivam Dubey, Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manish Sharma Raj Kumar And 8 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No.9237 of 2016, State Versus Raj Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.35 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.” 4. On 07.05.2025, the further order was passed:- “1. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this Court vide order dated 04.04.2023 had directed the trial Court to verify the compromise arrived between the parties and submit the said verification report before this Court within 15 days from 04.04.2023 but the verification report is still awaited. 2. Considering the above submission, the Investigating Officer is directed to ensure that the parties are present before the Court concerned in the Week Commencing 19th May, 2025. 3. List this matter on 22.07.2025. 4. Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing.” 5. Pursuant to the above directions of this Court, a report has been filed by the Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.2, Meerut through the District Judge, Meerut, attesting a fresh compromise, which was filed on 14.07.2025. The said compromise was verified by the Court concerned, the terms and conditions were read out and explained in Court, which both the parties agreed to on their own volition and without any coercion. 6. Today when the case is called out, Learned counsel for the parties also reiterate the verification of the compromise and the Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, Shri Manish Sharma states that the Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. itself may be allowed in terms of the compromise executed between the parties. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 8. This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677], Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian A482 No. 36351 of 2016 2 Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case. 10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No.9237 of 2016 (State vs. Raj Kumar and others) including Charge Sheet No.73 of 2014 dated 26.06.2014 arising out of Case Crime No.35 of 2014 under Sections 498- A, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the DP Act, P.S Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, are hereby quashed. 11. The instant application is, accordingly, allowed. October 13, 2025 A. Pandey A482 No. 36351 of 2016 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad