Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45489 of 2019 Applicant :- Ayub Ansari And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Muqeem Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri Faheem Ahmad, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Applicants no.2, namely, Aashique Ansari on behalf of applicants and opposite party no.2 Hujaifa -opposite party no.2, duly identified by their counsel, are present in person. Their signatures have also been verified by their counsel.
Heard Sri Muqeem Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Faheem Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.2094 of 2019 (State Vs. Ayub Ansari & others), arising out of Case Crime No.0001 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 336, 452, 427, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khetasarai, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, an FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no.2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of real incident. There was never any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. At present the parties to the dispute, who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and have made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no.2, namely, Hujaifa does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case, are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants on the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments 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 judgments, the Apex Cort 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 the case of Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. & 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 and also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceeding of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.2094 of 2019 (State Vs. Ayub Ansari & others), arising out of Case Crime No.0001 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 336, 452, 427, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khetasarai, District Jaunpur are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Anand Sri./-