Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10307 of 2018 Applicant :- Dilsher @Pappu And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Achyut Jee Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sudhanshu Upahdyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Sri Sudhanshu Upadhyay has filed his appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 56 of 2018 (State Vs. Dilsher @ Pappu & others), under Sections 147, 452, 324, 323 IPC, Police Station Pisawa, District Aligarh, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh and charge sheet no. 128 of 2017 dated 14.12.2017 and cognizance order dated 23.1.2018 arising out of case crime no. 0185 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and opposite party no.2 are members of the same family and that arising out of certain misunderstanding and misgiving, earlier the aforesaid case has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the present applicant. It has also been submitted that the present applicant had lodged another case against the opposite party no.2 being case crime no. 214 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 325, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. However with the passage of time the parties have been able to resolve their differences and it is now agreed that there was no criminal intent on the part of either party and the criminal case came to be lodged solely on account of misunderstandings and misgivings, suspicions and doubts.
Sri Sudhanshu Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further stated that the said opposite party no.2 has also filed 482 Cr.P.C. application no. 10279 of 2018, which is listed before another Court, today (for similar relief) as has been sought by the applicant in the present case, with respect to criminal case no. 214 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 325, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
The aforesaid facts are admitted to both learned counsel for the parties. It is therefore appears that the factum of the compromise having been entered into between the parties stands admitted to both parties since both the parties have approached this Court simultaneously, though separate applications.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav vs.
State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have compromised the dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not want to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
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, there is minimal chance of witnesses coming forward in support of prosecution case and it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries, hence chances of conviction appear to be remote. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Mini