Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9513 of 2018
Applicant :- Rajiv Upmanyu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 by Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra, Advocate, today, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10202 of 2017, as well as charge sheet dated 01.02.2017 and cognizance dated 04.03.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 215 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Hari Parwat, District Agra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that earlier FIR had been lodged against the applicant owing to certain misunderstanding between the parties and with the passage of time the parties have been able to resolve their misunderstanding and differences. It has further been submitted that the parties entered into a written compromise.
Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.2 (informant in the present case). In that counter affidavit, the factum of the compromise having been entered into between the parties has been specifically admitted and it is further being stated that the opposite party no.2 has no objection to the present prosecution being dropped.
It has also been stated that the dispute between the parties was purely commercial dispute and that the said opposite party no.2 received a sum of Rs. 2,17,000/- through bank. Details of which have also been disclosed in para 4 of the said counter affidavit, which reads as under:
"4. That after registration of the first information report and during pendency of the investigation the deponents/opposite party no.2 and applicant entered into compromise and in terms of the compromise on 16.02.2016 the applicant paid Rs. 20,000/-to the deponent through cheque no. 44408 and on 29.06.2016 paid Rs. 97,000/- through cheque no. 279883, finally he has paid Rs. 1,00,000/- through bank draft no. 53079 on 30.07.2016 to the deponent and as such till 30.07.2016 the applicant has paid the entire amount of Rs. 2,17,000/- to the deponent/opposite party no.2."
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 applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants 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 :- 23.3.2018 Lbm/-