Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30024 of 2018
Applicant :- Srinath Tiwari And 13 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Datta Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadhesh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well learned A.G.A. for the State and have gone through the record.
This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 1658 of 2017 (State Vs. Srinath Tiwari and Others) arsing out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2016 under Section 147, 148, 323, 336, 427, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.- Nebuwa Naurangiya, District- Kushinagar, in terms of the compromise.
It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well- wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to annexure-4 a compromise arises between the contesting parties by which both the parties have sorted out their differences and dispute out side the court. This fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite party no.2 and it has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.
The attention of this Court has been drawn to 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.
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 case. Therefore, the application is liable to be allowed.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the proceeding of Case No. 1658 of 2017 (State Vs. Srinath Tiwari and Others) arsing out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2016 under Section 147, 148, 323, 336, 427, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.- Nebuwa Naurangiya, District- Kushinagar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, is hereby quashed.
Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court below immediately.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 S.Verma