Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12197 of 2019 Applicant :- Subhash Chand Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Dhama
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Raj Kumar Dhama, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 2049 of 2016 (Vijendra Sharma vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Binauli, District - Baghpat pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.
On 04.04.2019, following order was passed:
"Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Raj Kumar 'Dhama', Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sanjay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Raj Kumar 'Dhama', learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 2049 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Binauli, District - Baghpat pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in terms of the compromise dated 10.1.2019 arrived at between the parties.
It is submitted by learned counsel for both the parties that parties have settle their dispute and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 10.1.2019, therefore, opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the trial or continue with the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case. It was a private / property dispute between the parties. Learned counsel further submitted that if the court permits, they will file compromise affidavit before the court concerned. A copy of compromise has been filed as annexure-4 to the application. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
List this case on 23.5.2019 before the appropriate Bench.
Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 16.4.2019 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.
Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise annexed as Annexure- 4 to the application to the court concerned within three days.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicant."
In compliance of the order dated 04.04.2019, counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit before this Court annexing the order dated 17.04.2019 passed by the concerned court by which compromise between the parties has been verified.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of the Apex Court:
a) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another;
(2003) 4 SCC 675;
b) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation;
(2008) 9 SCC 677;
c) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1;
d) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303;
e) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466;
In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held 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. & 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 as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case no. 2049 of 2016 (Vijendra Sharma vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Binauli, District - Baghpat pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, is hereby quashed.
This Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Priya