Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16617 of 2019 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of applicants, Sri Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA on behalf of State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 07.02.2018 and cognizance order dated 1304.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Shamli as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1625/9 of 2018 (State Vs. Anuj Kumar and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 773 of 2017, under sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 & 324 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Shamli on the ground of compromise dated 23.03.2019 which has been taken place between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 and all consequential proceedings.
The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 6 of the short counter affidavit, filed by Shri Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. A copy of the compromise dated 23.03.2019 has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of 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. 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.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Arti