Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21943 of 2019 Applicant :- Siddharth Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Jagdish Prasad Chaurasia, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf of applicant, Sri Jagdish Prasad Chaurasia, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet No. Default No. 1/18 charge sheet dated 15.11.2018, Case No. 43639 of 2018, Case Crime No. 290/18, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Disrict Ghaziabad which was submitted by the investigating Officer on 15.11.2018 and the cognizance by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Ghaziabad was taken on 15.12.2018.
The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, a settlement deed was signed by both the parties on 27.05.2019 and duly Notarized and attested by both the parties i.e. applicant and opposite party no. 2 namely Smt. Priyanka. A copy of Notarized affidavit dated 27.05.2019 has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.
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 :- 31.5.2019 Arti