Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47094 of 2019
Applicant :- Kishanveer And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Joint affidavit filed on behalf of both the parties today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure no.4) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad as well as further proceedings of Case No. 4474 of 2011 (State vs. Mahesh Dev and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of 2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Dakshin, District-Firozabad, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding 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. There are no injuries. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they 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 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.
In the above regard, a compromise has been entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed today a joint affidavit of both the parties. In paragraphs nos. 6 and 7, it has been stated as follows:
"6. That at the present time, the dispute has been settled between the applicants and opposite party no.2 (deponent no.3) with their mutual consent and the compromise has been held between the applicants and the opposite party no.2.
7. That at the present time, no dispute remain between the applicants and opposite party no.2."
The applicant nos.1 and 2, namely, Kishanveer and Mohd. Matloom @ Mohd. Matloob and the opposite party no.2, namely, Vidya Devi @ Vidha Devi 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 applicants submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2 has 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 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 Case No. 4474 of 2011 (State vs. Mahesh Dev and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of 2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Dakshin, District-Firozabad, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 JK Yadav