Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33885 of 2019
Applicant :- Shamashad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Kant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhiraj Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1632 of 2016 (Sahazad Vs. Shamashad and Others) Under Sections 323, 452, 468, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S.- Jhinjhana,District- Shamli, in terms of the compromise.
It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well- wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties by which both the parties have sorted out their differences and same has been duly verified by the Trial Court. This fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite party no.2 and it has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.
Pursuant to the order dated 23.9.2019 it was directed that "learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court."
Pursuant to order of this Court dated 23.9.2019 compromise affidavit filed before the Trial Court has been verified vide order dated 5.11.2019 (Annexure No. S.A.-2)/ 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 the order be transmitted to the Court below immediately.
Order Date :- 6.10.2021 S.Verma