Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22045 of 2019
Applicant :- Jalim And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Vikram Singh,Deepak Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Special Case No.449 of 2009, arises out of Case Crime No.620 of 2009 (State Vs. Jalim and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Aonla, District Bareilly on the basis of compromise dated 29.03.2019 held between the parties pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise have entered between them, which has been reduced in writing, copy whereof has been annexed on page no.25 of the application. He further submitted that it has been specifically mentioned in paragraph nos.9 and 10 of the paper book Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 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 fact, short counter affidavit filed today discloses that the compromise has been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into 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. 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 Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid said case is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 R./