Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15834 of 2021
Applicant :- Devendra And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogendra Pal Singh
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 filed short counter affidavit, same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 22.08.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 618 of 2020 (State v. Devendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0229 of 2019, under Sections 323, 324, 504 & 436 of I.P.C., Police Station Mandi Dhanaura, District Amroha, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Amroha on the basis of compromise dated 18.03.2021.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that after cognizance order, some relatives of the applicants and opposite party no. 2 mediated between them. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and they have jointly prepared a compromise deed dated 18.03.2021 in which they have agreed to dispose of the litigation on the basis of aforesaid compromise deed. Opposite party no. 2 specifically mentioned that he does not want to proceed with this case against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that proceedings of the aforesaid case should be quashed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
In para 5 of the short counter affidavit, it has been mentioned by opposite party no. 2 that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and they have settled their dispute amicably and does not want to proceed with the case.
Learned A.G.A. has also stated that he has no objection to compromise being allowed.
In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offence. Reference given by this Court in Shaifullah and others v. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has been explained in detail.
Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 2021 arising out of S.L.P. (Cri) No. 4617 of 2021 Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon v. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel & Anr has held in para no. 31 (6) that exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and deceit cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
In view of facts and circumstances and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid authorities, the proceedings of the aforesaid case deserve to be quashed.
Ordered accordingly.
The charge sheet dated 22.08.2019 as well as entire proceeding in above mentioned case stands quashed.
In the result, the instant application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 VPS