Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25553 of 2018 Applicant :- Mahendra And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Yogendra Pal Singh, Advocate, who has appeared for opposite party no.2 and has filed his vaklatnama today in Court, which is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 8.9.2016, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha (J.P. Nagar) in Complaint Case No. 711 of 2016 (Sonu Vs. Tarun and Others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Naugawa Sadat, District Amroha (J.P. Nagar) as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the pendency of the above mentioned complaint case, the parties have entered into a compromise as is explicit from compromise deed dated 7.7.2017, which is Annexure-5 of the paper book. On the basis of the compromise so entered between the parties, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicants that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case, as the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court, which is explicit from the compromise deed dated 7.7.2017. The said deed of compromise has also been duly notarized by virtue of notary affidavit as is explicit from the original compromise itself. He further submits that instead of relegating the parties to the court below, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
Mr. Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, does not dispute the factum regarding the compromise so entered into between the parties. He submits that in view of the compromise so entered into between the parties, whereby they have amicably resolved their dispute, no cause of action survives with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned complaint case.
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, wherein 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.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 711 of 2016 (Sonu Vs. Tarun and Others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Naugawa Sadat, District Amroha (J.P. Nagar), are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 Arshad