Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29389 of 2019 Applicant :- Sobaran Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hare Krishna Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A/Y0094
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Shri Yogesh Tiwari, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama and affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Yogesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Special Trial No. 349 of 2016, (State Vs. Sobaran Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) X of SC/ST Act, Police Station Punchh, District- Jhansi, which arises from the cognizance order dated 13.04.2011 passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi.
On the matter being taken up, Shri Yogesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that the dispute has already been compromised between the parties and he does not want to further pursue the case against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the compromise had already been taken place between the parties and settlement deed has been executed, which is annexed as annexure no. 3 and in para 1 of the affidavit, it has been stated that with the intervention of the respected members of the family, they entered into a compromise and do not want to further pursue criminal proceedings against the applicant in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them.
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.
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 case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Special Trial No. 349 of 2016 (State Vs. Sobaran Singh) in Case Crime No.17 of 2011,under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) X of SC/ST Act, PS- Punchh, District- Jhansi as well as cognizance order dated 13.4.2011 are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Neetu