Heard Mr. Vikash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Anjit Kumar, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of informant/opposite party no.2. by filing his vakalatnama along with short-counter affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-applicants challenging the entire proceedings of Case No.5077 of 2018, (State Vs. Bablu and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.375 of 2018, under Sections 323, 308, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Muradnagar, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Ghaziabad.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which occurred on 07.04.2018, informant/opposite party no.2, Munne Khan lodged a delayed F.I.R. on 08.04.2018. Same was registered as Case Crime No.375 of 2018, under Sections 323, 308, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Muradnagar, District- Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Bablu, Ehsan and Ali Mohammad, i.e., applicants herein have been nominated as named accused.
After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., police proceeded with statutory investigation of the concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. and upon completion of same ultimately submitted a charge-sheet dated 16.07.2018 against accused-applicants, whereby they have been charge-sheeted under Section 323, 308, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by court concerned. Consequently, Case No.5077 of 2018, (State Vs. Bablu and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.375 of 2018, under Sections 323, 308, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Muradnagar, District- Ghaziabad came to be registered, wherein applicants have been summoned.
During the pendency of above-mentioned criminal case, parties entered into an amicable settlement outside the Court and on the basis of settlement which was arrived at between parties a compromise deed dated 13.06.2020 was filed before court below. Compromise deed has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of application.
As no orders have been passed by court below on the the basis of aforesaid compromise, applicants who are accused have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. However, during the pendency of above-mentioned criminal case, parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise deed has also been filed in Court.
On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., instead of relegating the parties to Court below.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 could not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. It is contended by learned counsel for informant that once informant himself has compromised with the accused-applicants, then in that eventuality, he cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court. He has placed the averments made in short-counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 in support of aforesaid submissions.
This Court is not unmindful of 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,
6. Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ACC 278,
7. State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296.
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 some of 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 counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of the above mentioned case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.5077 of 2018, (State Vs. Bablu and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.375 of 2018, under Sections 323, 308, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Muradnagar, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Saif