Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9518 of 2018
Applicant :- Nadeem
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Jeet Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 36865 of 2017 (State Vs. Nadeem & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 496 of 2017, under Section 386, 120B IPC, Police Station Brahmapuri, District Meerut, pending in the Court Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the present prosecution has been lodged against the applicant on account of certain certain misunderstanding arising from commercial performed between the parties and with the passage of time, the parties have been able to resolve their misunderstanding and differences and at present the opposite party no.2 itself realize that the allegations have been made against the present applicant on account of misunderstanding and that the applicant had no criminal intent. It is further stated that an application for compromise has been filed by the opposite party no.2 before the court below.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the factum of the compromise having been entered into between the parties has been specifically admitted and it is further being stated that the opposite party no.2 has no objection to the present prosecution being dropped.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled the dispute in terms of the compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not want to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution against the applicant and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties that the opposite party no.2 has filed a compromise application before the court below with regard to the parties have entered into a compromise, the court below may fix a shot date for purpose of ascertaining whether such a compromise has actually been entered into between them and to seek verification of the same. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order on the compromise application so filed by the opposite party no.2 From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties, there is minimal chance of witnesses coming forward in support of prosecution case and it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries, hence chances of conviction appear to be remote. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands Disposed of. Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Lbm/-