Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10330 of 2018 Applicant :- Shamshad Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Uday Prakash Dev Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no,2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 8.4.2016 and cognizance order dated 29.7.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 36585 of 2016 (State Vs. Shamshad Ahmad), as Case Crime No. 1159 of 2015, under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that earlier FIR had been lodged against the applicant owing to certain misunderstanding and misgiving between the parties and with the passage of time the parties have been able to resolve their misunderstanding and differences.
Presently, it has been stated that the opposite party no.2 has filed an application before the learned Court below alongwith written compromise entered into between the parties wherein it has been stated that the parties have entered into a compromise and that the opposite party does not wish to press charges against the applicant. In support of the such fact, a certified copy of the order sheet has also been filed. Perusal thereof reveals that on 2.2.2018 the aforesaid application for compromise had been filed before the Court below,which has again been taken note of the order dated 28.2.2018.
Sri Uday Prakash Dev Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the fact stated by learned counsel for the applicant and he also does not dispute the correctness of the document annexed with the present application. In view of the documents filed with the present application including certified copy of the order sheet, it does appear that the parties have entered into compromise as disclosed and that no real dispute survives between them.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have compromised the dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not want to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
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, there is minimal chance of witnesses coming forward in support of prosecution case and it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries, hence chances of conviction appear to be remote. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Mini