Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21897 of 2019 Applicant :- Mritunjay Pandey And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Murari Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri R.R. Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Krishna Murari Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of applicants, Sri R.R. Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 1178 of 2018, (State Vs. Mritunjay Pandey and others) in Case Crime No. 396 of 2017, under sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Badagaon, District Varanasi arising out of Charge Sheet dated 31.10.2017, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. V, Varanasi in terms of compromise and verification dated 03.05.2019 taken between the parties.
The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, the compromise dated 03.05.2019 of the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 has been verified on 03.05.2019 and on the same next date is fixed on 12.06.2019. A copy of verification of compromise dated 03.05.2019 has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
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 cases, 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 the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Arti