Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13302 of 2013 Applicant :- Mangu Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.
Advocate,D.R.Chaudhary,S.K.Shukla
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Vishesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. S. D. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4376 of 2011 (Vijay Singh Vs. Mangu Singh and others) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Sikandrabad, District-Bulandshahar pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bulandshahar whereby the discharge application filed by the applicant in terms of Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
The present application came up for admission on 18.04.2013 and this Court passed the following interim order:-
"Heard Sri Vishesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that dispute between the parties, if any, is purely of civil nature and the present complaint file by the opposite party no.2 for malicious prosecution against the applicants.
Notice on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by the learned AGA Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the petition. If the requisites for issuing the notice under Registered Postal Cover With Acknowledgment Due are not filed within ten days, this petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to any Bench of this Court. Opp. Party no. 2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned AGA may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against the applicants of Complaint Case No.4376 of 2011 (Vijay Singh Vs. Mangu Singh and others), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class / Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bulandshahr shall remain stayed. ".
In response to the order dated 18.04.2013, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 wherein the opposite party no.2 has categorically stated in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the counter affidavit that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled outside the Court. The avermnents made in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 are reproduced hereinunder:
"5.That in the said complaint even the allegations leveled were true and there was some dispute between Mangu Singh and his family with his father, Vijai Singh. The answering deponent is the son of the complainant and do not want to pursue the present complaint as the matter has been amicably settled between Mangu Singh and other applicants with the him.
10. That the contents of paragraphs number 22, 23 and 24 of the affidavits are admitted to the extent that the present dispute appear to be a civil nature and applicant number 1, 2 3 are army personals whereas 4 and 5 are ladies. However the deponent by making statement in the proceedings does not want to impeach the character of the parties to the present case, however looking to the present situation and the interest of the progress of his family he has amicably resolved the dispute with the applicants and does not want to contest the present criminal proceedings arising out of complaint case number 439/2011 (Vijay Singh and Mangu Singh and others) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bulandshahr, in any court of law."
On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that once the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court by means of a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case pending. He therefore submits that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
Mr. S. D. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has supported the averments made in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the counter affidavit. According to the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, once the parties have settled their dispute outside the court then the opposite party no.2 cannot have any grievance in case the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case are quashed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to do complete justice between the parties.
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. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the judgements noted above 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. 4376 of 2011 (Vijay Singh Vs. Mangu Singh and others) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Sikandrabad, District-Bulandshahar pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bulandshahar, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 YK