Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14020 of 2018
Applicant :- Smt. Suman Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Sri Dinesh Pratap Singh, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 as also a counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today, which are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dinesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C., application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 7 of 2009, cognizance dated 30.07.2009 and the entire proceeding of Case No.1394 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 213 of 2007, under Sections 419, 420, 423, 416, 463, 464, 465, 466, 477A, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, pending in the Court Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Varanasi.
While, earlier arising from a registered sale deed executed in favour of the applicant by the brother of the opposite party no.2 disputes and differences had arisen between the parties including a suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by the opposite party no.2 and also an FIR lodged against the applicant resulting in the present proceeding.
It is further stated that civil suit had been decreed in favour of the opposite party no.2 and also the sale deed has been cancelled. In view of the aforesaid decree having been passed on the basis of compromise, the opposite party no.2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the FIR had been lodged against the applicants owing to certain misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With the passage of time the parties have been able to resolve their misunderstanding and differences and at present the opposite party no.2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
It is thus submitted that the parties had been able to resolve their disputes and they understand that there was no criminal intent ever on part of the applicant.
In this regard, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit reads as under:-
"6. That the contents of paragraph no. 21 and 22 of the affidavit is matter of record, however, since both the parties have entered into compromise and notarize compromise has already been prepared on 14.03.2018, therefore, nothing remains in the present controversy, however, the civil suits mentioned in the paragraph under reply in which both parties have entered into compromise and in the present proceeding also both parties have entered into compromise therefore nothing remains in the present proceedings at all. A photocopy of the compromise affidavit is being filed herewith and marked as Annexurre No. CA1 to this affidavit.
7. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 23 and 24 of the affidavit it is submitted that in good sense has been prevailed in both the parties and due to interference of well wisher of the parties both parties have entered into compromise and does not want to contest the case in future therefore, if the proceeding of the case no. 1394 of 2012 (State Vs. Suman Singh) arising out of case crime no. 213 of 2007 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Shivpur Varanasi in charge sheet no. 7 of 2009 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Varanasi is quashed then the deponent has not objection at all."
The opposite party no.2 has admitted the fact of the compromise having been entered into between the parties and that he has no objection, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled the dispute through a compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw from the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably, which was purely civil.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties, there is minimal chance of witnesses coming forward in support of prosecution case and it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries, hence chances of conviction appear to be remote. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Lbm/-