Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32873 of 2009
Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Chaubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Rajiv Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. From the order dated 16.02.2010, it is clear that the applicant no.1 Sanjay Kumar Chaubey and opposite party no.2 Dr. Ram Murti Singh were present before the Court. On 16.02.2010 following order was passed:-
"Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh and Shri Ranvijai Singh are filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.
In pursuance of the order dated 18.12.2009 the applicant no.1 Sanjay Kumar Chaubey and respondent no.2 Dr. Ram Murti Singh are present in the Court.
On query made by Dr. Ram Murti Singh stated that he has entered into compromise with the applicant, therefore, the charge sheet of this case may be quashed.
Order reserved."
2. Heard Sri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the Charge Sheet 02.12.2008 as well as entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 960 of 2008 (State vs. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey), Case No. 19476 of 2009, under Sections 323, 392, 386, 452, 506 IPC, Police Station-Cantt, District-Varanasi pending in the court of C.J.M., Varanasi.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. It is further argued that there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries and at present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 16.02.2010 goes to show that the compromise has entered into between the parties in outside the court and now both the parties having no grievances with each other and are living peacefully.
7. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
(i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675;
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1;
(iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;
(v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;
In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.
8. 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 expatiated in detail.
9. From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.
10. 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, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
11. Accordingly, the Charge Sheet 02.12.2008 as well as entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 960 of 2008 (State vs. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey), Case No. 19476 of 2009, under Sections 323, 392, 386, 452, 506 IPC, Police Station-Cantt, District-Varanasi pending in the court of C.J.M., Varanasi is hereby quashed.
12. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly,
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 JK Yadav