Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6331 of 2018 Applicant :- Mohd. Kayamuddin Ahmad And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Sri Prakash Kumar Srivastava filed Vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit on behalf of the victim and Mohd. Afzal Ansari filed Vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit are taken on record.
On the oral request of counsel for the victim, he is permitted to implead the victim as opposite party no. 3.
Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit that inadvertently criminal case no. has wrongly mentioned in the prayer. He is permitted to correct criminal case no. in the prayer.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the case no. 212 of 2011 (State vs. Altaf Hussain and others) arising out of case crime no. 1104 of 2010, u/s 363, 366, 368 IPC, P.S. Rajghat, District Gorakhpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no. 3, Gorakhpur.
Heard Sri Lalit Kumr Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Mohd. Afzal Ansari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Prakash Kumar Srivastava counsel for the victim- opposite party no. 3 as well as the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that the applicant no. 1 and daughter of opposite party no. 2 are major and they have solemnized Nikah in the year 2010 and at that time the opposite party no. 2 was against the marriage however, during investigation the victim - opposite party no. 3 had filed an application supported by an affidavit that she has already performed Nikah with applicant no. 1 and the allegations made by her father of kidnapping are totally false and concocted and therefore, investigation be dropped. However, chargesheet was submitted and the applicants are facing trial since 2010. Today the victim- opposite party no. 3 and applicant no. 1 are present before the Court and they have been duly identified by their counsel. They have stated that they are leading happy married life for the past five years and a child also born from the wedlock. Beside it, short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no. 3- victim has been filed in which it is unequivocally stated that they have no objection if the proceedings against the applicants be quashed as out of the court they have amicably settled all their disputes.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have settled their disputes amicably, the proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of U.P., (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no. 3- victim submitted that since the dispute between the parties have been settled, the opposite parties have no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be quashed.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record including the joint affidavit filed today on behalf of the parties.
In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands.
Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
In view of the above, the application is allowed.
The entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed in terms of compromise.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Dhirendra/