Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15051 of 2019
Petitioner :- Jyoti Saxena @ Shalini And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.3 in Court today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present petition has been filed for quashing the of the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 1422 of 2014, U/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 406 IPC, P.S. Sungarhi, District Pilibhit.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the parties have entered into a compromise. He further contends that initially an writ petition being writ petition no. 16073 of 2014 hsa ben filed before this Court which was disposed of by another Bench of this Court in the following terms:
"Authority to arrest without warrant has been conferred with the police officer under Chapter V Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it is for the police officer to decide as to what action is required to be taken while effectuating arrest and certainly this decision has to be taken on the basis of material/information. In cognizable offences where maximum sentence is 7 years, arrest is not to be made in routine manner, and provisions of Section 41 (1) (b) and 41-A has to be complied with, and in cases when there is credible information of committing cognizable offence punishment with imprisonment of term for more than 7 years whether or without fine or with death sentence and the police officer has reason to believe that such person has committed the said offence arrest can be effectuated straightway. In reference of the offence committed, information received, it is the police officer, who has to decide as to what offence has been committed by the accused and as to whether arrest is warranted in the facts of the case, and as to what criteria is to be adhered to. In case any infringement of law is there in effectuating arrest, the Magistrate concerned, before whom accused is produced for remand, can remedy the grievance, so raised by the arrested person, at the point of time of according remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C. "
It appears that subsequently the final report which was submitted was rejected and an order was passed for further investigation.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.3 has not disputed the facts as stated by the learned counsel for the applicants. He further contended opposite party no.3 does not want to proceed with the present case against the applicants and the same may be allowed. He drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph nos. 3 to 6 of the short counter affidavit.
In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the compromise, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC, 303; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and 2014 AIR SCW 2065; Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, the aforementioned FIR is hereby quashed.
The present petition is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Kuldeep