Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36673 of 2008
Applicant :- Saurabh Anchal And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Mohan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,B.P.Tiwari
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel on behalf of applicant today in the Court is taken on record.
Supplementary affidavit dated 15.6.2019 filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard Sri Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Bijai Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No.188 of 2008 dated 5.9.2008 submitted in Case Crime No.226 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1178 of 2008.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph nos.5, 6 and 7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 15.6.2019, wherein it has been stated that during the pendency of proceedings better sense prevail between the parties who have now entered into an amicable settlement 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.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Dev/-