Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21681 of 2019
Applicant :- Abhinav Sharma And 3 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Santendra Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record.
Joint Supplementary affidavit dated 21.5.2019 filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Satendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.11.2018 in Criminal Case No.2765 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.529 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354-B, 377 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.2 of the joint supplementary affidavit dated 21.5.2019, wherein it has been stated that during the pendency of proceedings better sense prevail between the parties who have now entered into an amicable settlement.Sri Satendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 Sri Satendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the fact of compromise between the parties and submits that she does not want to pursue the matter any further.
The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
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. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
In the aforesaid cases, 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 the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Dev/-