Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43229 of 2019 Applicant :- Pawan Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kashi Naresh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Mr. Kashi Naresh Mishra, Shah, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Neeraj, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. by filing his vakalatnama along with short counter affdiavit in Court today, which is taken on record.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2052 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 8/2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Akrabad, District-Aligarh, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Court no. 4, District-Aligarh.
On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the parties have informed the Court that both the applicants, namely, Pawan Kumar and Del Veer as also first informant/opposite party no.2 Ibne Hasan are present in Court today. They have been identified by their respective counsel and their signatures have also been verified by them.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.
In the above regard, a written compromise has been entered into between the parties, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 enclosing the copy of the compromise entered into between the applicant and opposite party no.2 as Annexure-S.C.A.-1 to the short counter affidavit filed.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, who is present in the Court today submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
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 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 805 of 2011 arising out of Case No. 2052 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 8/2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Akrabad, District-Aligarh, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Court no. 4, District-Aligarh, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Sushil/-