Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14795 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajendra @ Rajjan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav,Ashwini Kumar Ojha 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 to quash the entire proceedings of Special Case No. 87 of 2003 (State Vs. Ram Sewak and others) (arising out of Case Crime No. 147/2003, under Sections 323, 506, 387 IPC and 22 of Money Lending Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi), pending in the Court of Special Judge (DAA) Jhansi in terms of compromise entered between the parties on 17.4.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant and opposite party no.2 are potters/'kumhar' arising out of some petty differences the FIR had been lodged against the applicant. However, with passage of time, the parties have been able to resolve their differences and it is now understood between the parties that the FIR had been lodged occasioned by mere misunderstanding and misgivings and not by any real incident.
To that end, the parties have filed a joint affidavit of the applicant and opposite party nos. 2 an 3 in support of the present application. It is further submitted that the applicant had also filed an application in that regard before the learned Court below.
Sri S.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 does not dispute the correctness of the factual assertion made by learned counsel for the applicant or the fact that a joint affidavit has been executed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. He further states that at present the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 do not wish to press charges against the applicant and that their differences stand amicably resolved. The applicant also does not wish to make any allegation against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. They understand that there was no criminal intent ever on part of either of the parties.
The opposite party no.2 has admitted the fact of the compromise being entered into between the parties and that he has no objection, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.
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 compromised the dispute 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 of the applicant and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
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 allowed. Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Mini