Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21684 of 2019
Applicant :- Jahid And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Sri Krishna Dutta Awasthi, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his Vakalatnama alongwith Supplementary counter affidavit dated 30.5.2019 today in the Court which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Krishna Dutta Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 charge sheet No.56/2017 dated 16.8.2017 as well as the cognizance taking order dated 19.12.2017 in Case No.3448/2017 arising out of Case Crime No.114/2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Firozabad, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Firozabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.4 of the short counter affidavit dated 30.5.2019, 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 and have decided to live together.
Sri Krishna Dutta Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the fact of compromise and submits that opposite party no.2 also does not want to proceed with the matter any further.
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 :- 30.5.2019 Dev/-