Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40360 of 2019
Applicant :- Babli @ Islam And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bal Krishna Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Counter affidavits filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 as well as injured in the present case respectively, today in the Court, are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Bal Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash entire proceedings of Case No. 2064 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 310 of 2017, under Sections 307, 323, 352, 452, 504 IPC, Police Station-Nagphani, District- Moradabad pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 as well as injured person owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. It is further argued that there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries and at present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that in view of the settlement reached between the parties, they 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 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
6. It is also stated by learned counsel for the applicants that compromise deed executed between the parties on 10.11.2017, copy of the same has been appended as Annexure no.2 to the affidavit in support of the present application, wherein it has been stated that both the parties wants to settle the dispute.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the counter affidavit of the injured persons in which it has been stated that the compromise has entered into between the parties in outside the court with the presence of some respective persons and now both the parties having no grievances with each other and are living peacefully.
8. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
(i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675;
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1;
(iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;
(v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;
In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.
9. 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 expatiated in detail.
10. From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between 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 as the parties have already settled their dispute.
12. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 2064 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 310 of 2017, under Sections 307, 323, 352, 452, 504 IPC, Police Station-Nagphani, District-Moradabad pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad is hereby quashed.
13. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly,
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 JK Yadav