Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47192 of 2019 Applicant :- Imran @ Shekhu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. G.K. Pandey, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vakalatnama along with affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record as well as perused the materials on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 18th June, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Rampur in S.T. No. 470 of 2014 (State Vs. Imran @ Shekhu), under Sections 307, 120-B and 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Rampur on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature having arisen over property. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstandings and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence, as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. Injuries claimed are wholly exaggerated. There may be some minor injuries as may have been unintentionally caused in the commotion that occurred at the relevant time. In any case the injury report does not represent the true facts. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other have resolved their differences and have made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 i.e. informant and opposite party no.3 i.e. the injured witness, do not wish to press charges against the applicants. Both the parties have settled their dispute and have arrived at a compromise.
In the above regard, a compromise affidavit, which is sworn by opposite party nos. 2 and 3, has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
In paragraph nos. 3 to 5 of the compromise affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, following has been stated:
" 3. That, in the above noted application the deponents are the opposite party no.2 Junaid Khan is the informant in the above noted criminal case and the opposite party no.3 is the injured in the present case. It is further submitted that both the parties have been entered into compromise, in harmonious atmosphere and in presence of the prestigious person of the society. The copy of the compromise affidavit is being filed here with and marked as annexure no.1 to this affidavit.
4. That, the both the parties are living peacefully and deponents (Opp. no. 2 and 3) don't want to run the above noted criminal case. That therefore it is humble prayed to this Hon'ble court to quash the entire proceeding of the session trial no. 470 of 2014 under section 307, 120B and 406 of I.P.C., State vs Imran @ Shekhu P.S. Civil Lines District Rampur, on the basis of the compromise between the parties.
5. That, the present compromise affidavit filed by the deponents being opposite party no. 2 and 3 who are the informant and injured respectively, therefore, it is humble prayed to this Hon'ble court to accept the present compromise affidavit and treat the same as part and parcel of the present application, to meet the ends of justice."
Today, applicant, namely, Imran @ Shekhu, opposite party nos. 2 and 3, namely, Junaid Khan and Tabish Nasim Azad (informant and injured respectively) are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them.
On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
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, In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held 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. & 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of S.T. No. 470 of 2014 (State Vs. Imran @ Shekhu), under Sections 307, 120- B and 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines, District- Rampur pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Rampur, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Sushil/-