Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21840 of 2019 Applicant :- Gaurav And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Counter affidavit dated 31.5.2019 filed by Sri Upendra Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard Sri Shailendra Pratap Sinch, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Upendra Vikram Singh learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.66669 of 2017(_State Vs. Gaurav and others ) pending before Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Meerut arsing out of Case Crime No. 051 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 376,511,377 and 328 I.P.C. and Sectio9n 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Pallavpuram, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court towards annexure no.5 filed in support of the application wherein it has been stated that during the pendency of proceedings better sense prevail between the parties who have now entered into an amicable settlement .Now, no dispute exists as on date between the applicants and the opposite party no.2.
The attention of This Court has been drawn to 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.
In the aforesaid cases, 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 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 the counsel for 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.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 aks