Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18142 of 2019
Applicant :- Hotilal And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arjun Singh Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Ref:- Criminal Misc. Correction Application No.2 of 2019:-
Heard Sri Arjun Singh Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 6.5.2019 this Court has been pleased to quash the charge sheet of this case on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which was duly filed before the concerned Court and the same was disposed of by the concerned Court below vide order dated 8.9.2018, a copy of which has been filed annexure-6 to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application, but due to some inadvertent mistake some other order of different case has been transcribed.
In view of the above the order dated 6.5.2019 is hereby recalled and the following order is being passed:-
"Heard Sri Arjun Singh Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, 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 charge sheet No.01 of 2016 dated 10.12.2016 in Case Crime No.210 of 2016 (State Vs. Hotilal & others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun.
Learned counsel for the applicants states that during the pendency of proceedings better sense prevail between the parties who have now entered into an amicable settlement, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending.
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."
The correction application is accordingly, disposed off.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Dev/-