Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14663 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. M. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I in Complaint Case No. 2668 of 2016 (Sanjeev Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. Anil Kumar Chaturvedi and others) under Sections 420, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Chirgaon, District- Jhansi as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the pendency of the present criminal misc. application, the parties entered into a compromise. Accoardingly a short counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 before the Court on 30.04.2018. Taking note of the aforesaid fact, this Court passed an order dated 30.04.2018 whereby the parties were directed to appear before the court below for verification of the compromise dated 31.03.2018 so entered between the parties. The order dated 30.04.2018 is reproduced herein below:
Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 30.04.2018, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1, Jhansi has sent a letter dated 17.05.2018 stating therein that in compliance of the order dated 30.04.2018 passed by this Court, the parties have duly appeared before him and the compromise dated 31.03.2018 so entered between the parties has been verified.
The letter dated 17.05.2018 sent by the ACJM, Court no.1, Jhansi to this Court is on the record.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed a short counter affidavit wherein also the factum with regard to the compromise so entered between the parties on 31.03.2018 has been categorically stated in paragraph 4 of the short counter affidavit.Furthermore it has also been averred that on account of the compromise so entered between the parties, the opposite party no.2 does not want to contest the case.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the following cases:
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 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 judgments noted above 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 complaint case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 YK