Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21644 of 2019 Applicant :- Shuib Khan @ Shuaib-Uddin Khan And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Joint affidavit filed by Sri Purushottam Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of sister of opposite party no. 2 namely Saira Parvez and Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of applicant No. 1 namely Shuaib-Uddin khan @ Shuib Khan, is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash/stay the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 3237/2018, Case Crime No. 949/2017, under sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur as well as charge dated 04.05.2018 cognizance taken on 24.07.2018 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur, District Rampur.
It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of applicant no. 1 Shuib Khan @ Shuaib-Uddin Khan and sister of opposite party no. 2 Smt. Sayara both are living as husband and wife and now there is no dispute between both the parties, so they are decided to withdraw all the cases, the said fact has been mentioned in para 4 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.
The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 3 of the joint affidavit, filed by Sri Purushottam Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of sister of opposite party no. 2 namely Saira Parvez and Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of applicant No. 1 namely Shuaib-Uddin khan @ Shuib Khan.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
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.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Arti