Magendra Kumar Sharma Alias Umesh Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109604

Court No. - 64

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33740 of 2024

Applicant :- Magendra Kumar Sharma Alias Umesh Chandra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajay Kishore Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Magendra Kumar Sharma @ Umesh Chandra and Smt. Malti Devi with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 28.09.2022 in Complaint Case No. 4660 of 2022 (Beena Devi Vs. Magendra Kumar Sharma and another) under Sections 498, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Nidhauli Kalan, District- Etah pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.D.), Jalesar, Etah. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶9

Vide order dated 18.10.2024 notice was issued to the opposite party no.2. As per the office report dated 09.07.2025 a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report dated 25.11.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah is on record which states that notice has been served on the opposite party no.2. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶10

The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 18.10.2024 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.

¶11

As per report of Mediation Centre dated 07.03.2025 the parties have entered into settlement dated 07.03.2025 in view of Interim Settlement dated 07.02.2025 and have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.

¶12

As per the office report dated 09.07.2025 a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record.

¶13

From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 07.03.2025 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising out in the present matter. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para 7 (f) of the said mediation report.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 applicants.

¶16