Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18100 of 2020 Applicant :- Sahin And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Kumar
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing charge sheet dated 21.02.2019 along with cognizance order dated 28.03.2019 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Room No.2, Saharanpur as well as proceedings of Special Case No.56 of 2019 (State Versus Sahin and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 04 of 2019, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 294 IPC and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Janakpuri, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Room No.2, Saharanpur in terms of the compromise entered into between parties on 03.02.2020.
It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well- wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned which has been properly verified by the court concerned. The certified copy of the said compromise has been filed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit.
The attention of this Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
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 cases, 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 complaint case.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to trial court concerned within a week for communication and necessary action.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 MN/-