Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32057 of 2016 Applicant :- Shiv Chanran Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.K.Chaudhary,Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the further proceedings of Criminal Case No.
391 of 2012 (14396 of 2016) (State vs. Shiv Charan & Others), under Sections 324, 325, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Chajlet, District Moradabad pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present application was filed with a joint affidavit of the applicant no.1 as well as the opposite party no.2 categorically stating that during the pendency of the above mentioned complaint case, the parties have entered into a compromise and on the basis of thereof, the proceedings of the State case giving rise to the present application may be quashed by this Court.
However when the matter was taken up for consideration on 24th October, 2016, this Court passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C., application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No.405 of 2008, under Sections 324, 325, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Chajlet, District Moradabad relating to criminal case No.391 of 2012 (14936/16) (State Vs. Shiv Charan and others).
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the private dispute between the parties has been compromised, therefore, the continuance of the present proceedings against the applicants is bad in law.
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within a period of four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Opposite party no.2 may also file counter affidavit within the same period. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicants, two weeks, thereafter, is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
Pursuant to the order dated 24th October, 2016, the opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the factum with regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties has been clearly admitted. It has also been averred that the opposite party no.2 does not wish to prosecute the present applicants.
In light of the facts as noted herein above, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute. Since the parties have settled the same outside the Court, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned State case. It is, thus, urged that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may itself quash the proceedings of the above mentioned State case, instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicants. He further submits that since the opposite pary tno.2 has himself entered into a compromise with the applicants to settle the dispute, he cannot have any surviving cause of action to pursue the above mentioned complaint case which came into existence on the basis of a first information report lodged by him.
This Court is not unmindful of 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, wherein 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. & 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 State case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 391 of 2012 (14396 of 2016) (State vs. Shiv Charan & Others), under Sections 324, 325, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Chajlet, District Moradabad pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Sushil/-