Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7133 of 2018
Petitioner :- Jitendra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Sri Rajendra Prasad Maurya has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 which is taken on record.
Heard Sri H.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.P. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent, Ms. Ibha Sinha, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record..
By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the F.I.R. dated 3.10.2017 registered as case crime no. 380 of 2017 under sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Chirgaon, District Jhansi.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the victim-respondent no. 5 in her statement has not alleged any allegation against the petitioner. He submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties, hence the F.I.R. of the present case is liable to be quashed.
Sri R.P. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has admitted the fact of the compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012)10 SCC 303 and has submitted that the petitioners and respondent nos. 4 and 5 have compromised the dispute and as such respondent nos. 4 and 5 do not want to press the present case against the petitioners. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 are ready to withdraw the prosecution of the petitioners and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
In this regard the view taken by the Apex court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh versus State Of Punjab (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner finds force that this court in exercise of its inherent power article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the F.I.R. as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.
Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence the F.I.R. of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. The present petition stands allowed.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Shiraz