Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Ashok Kumar And Others vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|20 August, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27773 of 2018 Applicant :- Ashok Kumar And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manju Savita Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Ms. Manju Savita, the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Ajay Sengar, Advocate who has put in his appearance on behalf of the opposite party No.2.
A compromise affidavit jointly sworn by the applicants and the opposite parties has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.), Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No.66 of 2014 (Aslam Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others), under Sections 324 and 387 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali-Kalpi, District Jalaun as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of the Court to the joint compromise affidavit filed today in Court.
On the basis of the aforesaid affidavit, she submits that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and the parties have settled the same outside the Court. In view of the settlement so arrived at between the parties outside the Court, the complainant-opposite party No.2 has agreed to terminate the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case. The compromise so entered between the parties has not been brought on record but what has been stated in the joint affidavit is that since the parties have already settled their dispute outside the Court, the complainant-opposite party No.2 does not wish to pursue the complaint. She further submits that in view of the aforesaid averment of the complainant-opposite party No.2, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case. She further submits that instead of relegating the parties to the Court below, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case, to do complete justice between the parties.
Mr. Ajay Sengar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party No.2 does not dispute the contents of the joint compromise affidavit filed today. He submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties outside the Court, the opposite party No.2 does not wish to pursue the complaint case filed by him any further. He also submits that in view of the compromise so entered between the parties, the complainant-opposite party No.2 cannot have any further cause of action to pursue the complaint case.
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.
wherein 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 Complaint Case No.66 of 2014 (Aslam Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others), under Sections 324 and 387 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali-Kalpi, District Jalaun, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.8.2018 cks
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Ashok Kumar And Others vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
20 August, 2018
Judges
  • Rajeev Misra
Advocates
  • Manju Savita