HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3705 of 2016 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Sunil Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Shri Satendra Kumar, Learned Counsel for 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 proceedings of Case no. 1893 of 2013, under Sections 392, 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Saharanpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Saharanpur. 3. On 06.05.2025, the following order was passed:- “1. Heard Sri R.P. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing summoning order dated 04.06.2014 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1893 of 2013 under Section 392, 504 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Saharanpur pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and the opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants. The compromise has taken place between them on 23.12.2021 and the compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-2 to compromise application. 4. Learned A.G.A. stated that he has no objection if the matter is settled in terms of compromise. 5. In view of above facts, the parties shall file an application along with the compromise deed before the concerned Court below and appear before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise in the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Prakash Vishwakarma, Vinay Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar Shukla, G.A., Ram Adhar Yadav, Satendra Kumar Ompal And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 3rd week of May, 2025. On receiving the said application, the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise and shall prepare a verification report. The concerned Court shall send the verification report to this Court, which may be placed in the file. 6. List this matter on 21.07.2025 along with report of Court below. 7. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, in the aforesaid case.” 4. Pursuant to the above directions of this Court, a report has been filed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Saharanpur, in which it is stated that both the parties were duly identified and the compromise has been verified. The copy of the compromise has also been annexed with the report, in which it is stated that the complainant is the wife of the applicant no.2 and due to certain matrimonial disputes with the in-laws, various litigations ensued. The husband and wife have resolved their disputes and the wife is living with her husband since 2019 in her matrimonial home, where she has also been blessed with a daughter. Shri Sunil Srivastva, Advocate holding brief of Shri Satendra Kumar submits that the complaint was a result of marital discord and in fact it was not a case of loot, as may appear from the complaint. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the parties submit that as the dispute in question was a matrimonial dispute and the same has been amicably resolved between the parties on intervention of family members and good sense prevailing, the continuation of these proceedings would disturb the even harmony of matrimonial life. In these circumstances, Learned counsels for the parties pray that the proceedings be quashed and this case between the parties may come to an end. They further submit that other litigations between the parties have also been resolved. 7. 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 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 A482 No. 3705 of 2016 2 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the fact that the complainant and applicant no.2 are living together since 2019, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case. 9. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case no. 1893 of 2013, under Sections 392, 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Saharanpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Saharanpur, are hereby quashed. 10. The instant application is, accordingly, allowed. October 15, 2025 A. Pandey A482 No. 3705 of 2016 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad