Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20225 of 2015 Applicant :- Shyam @ Sumod And 5 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Adovcate,Anil Kumar Bind
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 274 of 2014 (Smt. Ruchi Vs. Shyamu @ Sumod and Others), under Sections 323, 506, 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
The present application came up for admission on 27.7.2015 and the Court passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The applicant no. 1 is husband of the victim and applicant nos. 2 to 6 are family members of the victim.
So far as applicant no. 1 is concerned, the following order is passed:
"The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 274 of 2014 under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
However, it is directed that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed off finally."
So far as applicant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, the following order is passed.
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and leaned A.G.A. for the State. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.
Four weeks time is granted to opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit. Rejonder affidavit may be filed within three weeks thereafter.
Prima facie, a case for grant of an interim relief has been made out.
In the meantime, further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 274 of 2014 under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad shall remain stayed.
List thereafter."
Subsequent to the order dated 27.7.2015, passed by this Court, the parties have amicably settled their dispute by way of compromise. The compromise application was filed before the Court below, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit. The said compromise was jointly filed by the parties and has also been verified by Judicial Magistrate, City Farrukhabad vide order dated 14.3.2018, which is on the record as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.7.2018. On the facts as noted herein above, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the applicants and the opposite party no.2 have already settled their dispute by way of compromise, no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned state case.
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. 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 Complaint Case No. 274 of 2014 (Smt. Ruchi Vs. Shyamu @ Sumod and Others), under Sections 323, 506, 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Arshad