Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28402 of 2019 Applicant :- Pintu @ Sudhir Nishad And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Digvijai Nath Pandey
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Sri Digvijay Nath Pandey, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Sri Digvijay Nath Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned Charge-Sheet dated 15.12.2016 along with summoning order dated 06.01.2017 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Special Trial No.278 of 2017, (State Vs. Pintu @ Sudhir Nishad and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 704 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(vii)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur in the light of compromise dated 22.04.2017 between the applicants and Opposite Party No.2.
On the matter being taken up, Sri Digvijay Nath Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. has stated that the dispute has already been compromised between the parties and he does not want to further pursue the case against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that a compromise has already been entered into between the applicants and opposite party no. 2 and settlement deed has been executed, in which, it has been stated that on the intervention of respected members of the society, the applicants and the opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute outside the court in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them and they do not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings, as such, entire criminal proceedings be quashed.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has filed an affidavit and in para 7 to 9, it has been stated that the parties have entered into a compromise and they do not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relation between them and he has no objection, if the proceedings are quashed.
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.
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. 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 case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of impugned Charge-Sheet dated 15.12.2016 along with summoning order dated 06.01.2017 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Special Trial No.278 of 2017, (State Vs. Pintu @ Sudhir Nishad and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 704 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(vii)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Nadim