Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15706 of 2014 Applicant :- Nankoo And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,J.C. Singh,Sandeep Kumar,Santosh Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. R. P. Kanaujiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 16.04.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, District Fatehpur in Complaint Case No. 130 of 2013 (Om Narain Shukla Vs. Nankoo and others) under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Zafarganj, District Fatehpur as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
The present application came up for admission on 06.05.2014 and this Court passed the following interim order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 16.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, District Fatehpur in Complaint Case No. 130 of 2013 under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Zafarganj, District Fatehpur as well as to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.3 initiated proceedings under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3 (1)X SC/ST Act against the opposite party no.2 and as a counter blast to the same, the present proceedings has been initiated against the applicants which is nothing but misuse of the process of law.
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within a period of four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Opposite party no.2 may also file counter affidavit within the same period. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicants two weeks' thereafter, is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. "
During the pendency of the present application, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute outside the court by way of compromise. Consequently, an application dated 18.12.2017 duly supported by an affidavit of the opposite party no.2- complainant has been filed in the present application praying therein that the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case may be quashed in view of the compromise so entered into between the parties. The factum with regard to the compromise so entered into between the parties has been categorically stated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit accompanying the aforesaid application.
For ready reference paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 are reproduced hereunder:-
" 5. That proceedings between parties initiated due to some misunderstanding and now matter has been settled amicably between the parties. Both the parties do not want to proceeds the cases against each others.
6. That both the parties have been agreed to withdraw their cases and they have no malice to each other.
7. That matter is of private natue and may be quashed on the basis of compromise."
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute and the parties have settled the same by way of compromise arrived at between them outside the court, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case pending. He therefore submits that the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case giving rise to the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are liable to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
Mr. R. P. Kanaujiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants. He further submits that now the opposite party no.2 cannot have any surviving cause of action to pursue the complaint case filed by him in view of the compromise so entered into between the parties outside the court.
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 the Complaint Case No. 130 of 2013 (Om Narain Shukla Vs. Nankoo and others) under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Zafarganj, District Fatehpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, District Fatehpur are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 YK