Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10592 of 2018
Petitioner :- Rajkumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Satya Prakash Rathore, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 3 which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.P. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Sri N.K. Verma, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 26.2.2018 registered as case crime no. 33 of 2018 under sections 420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Uldan, District Jhansi.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and entered into a compromise and to this effect respondent no. 3 has given an affidavit before the S.S.P. concerned copy of which has been annexed as annexure- 2 to the present petition and now the respondent no. 3 has no grievance with the petitioners but the compromise which has been arrived between the parties is not being entertained by the Investigating Officer, hence the impugned F.I.R. be quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
Sri S.P. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has admitted the fact of the compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1 and Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another reported in 2008 (9) SCC 677 and has submitted that the petitioner and respondent no. 3 have compromised the dispute and as such respondent no. 3 does not want to press the aforesaid case against the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the petitioner 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 the prosecution case, 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 Manoj Sharma (supra) and Nikhil Merchant (supra) that this court in exercise of its inherent power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the F.I.R. The impugned FIR is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.
There shall however be no order as to costs.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Shiraz