Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21475 of 2019
Applicant :- Ajaz Ali And 10 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Sri Rakesh Dubey and Sri Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel have put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing their Vakalatnama alongwith short counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rakesh Dubey and Sri Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.2047 of 2018 (State Vs. Ajaz Ali and others) arising out of Case Crime No.722/2017 in respect of applicant nos.1 to 10, under Sections 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C & Section 3/4 D.P. Act in respect of applicant no.11, under 498-A, 328, 376, 509, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Special C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the pendency of proceedings better sense prevail between the parties who have now entered into an amicable settlement, reference in this regard is made to annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application.
Sri Rakesh Dubey and Sri Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also submits that parties have amicably settled their disputes, reference in this regard is made to paragraph 2 of the short counter affidavit dated 24.5.2019.
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 :- 29.5.2019 Dev/-