Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15658 of 2018 Applicant :- Nishan Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mazhar Ullah,Pradeep Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate, who has appeared for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 7th March, 2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 1055 of 2016 (Palvinder Kaur vs. Gurusevak Singh & Others), under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila Thana, District Rampur as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
The present application came up for admission on 4th May, 2018 and the Court directed that the matter be listed on 11th May, 2018.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that he has filed counter affidavit in the registry on 7th August, 2018 and has produced original receipt showing the filing of the counter affidavit in the registry on 7th August, 2018. However, the said counter affidavit is not on the record. A duly attested photo copy of the said counter affidavit has been filed in court today, which is taken on the record.
Mr. Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for the applicants does not dispute the authenticity of the photo copy of the counter affidavit filed in Court today.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the pendency of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the parties have entered into compromise, which was reduced to writing, by means of the compromise dated 5th February, 2018. Subsequently, on the basis of the aforesaid compromise so entered into between the parties on 5th February, 2018, a compromise affidavit was filed on 17th February, 2018 before the court below. It is, thus, submitted that once the parties have entered into compromise, whereby and where-under they have resolved their dispute, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case pending. It is further urged that since the parties have already entered into compromise, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, this Court itself may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to do the complete justice between the parties, instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants. He fairly admits the compromise entered into between the parties on 5th February, 2018 followed by the submission of the affidavit to decide the case on the basis of the compromise affidavit filed on 17th February, 2018. On the strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 now cannot have any further surviving cause of auction to pursue the above mentioned complaint case filed by her.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments 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 wherein 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. & 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 as the parties have already settled their dispute by way of compromise dated 5th February, 2018.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1055 of 2016 (Palvinder Kaur vs. Gurusevak Singh & Others), under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila Thana, District Rampur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Sushil/-