Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27671 of 2016 Applicant :- Surendra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav,Jalaj Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Narayan Pandey
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Jalaj Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Daksha Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 28th February, 2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No. 1411 of 2012 (Sumit vs. Surendra & Others), under Sections 323, 394 and 395 I.P.C. Police Station Mirzapur, District Shahjahanpur as well as the order dated 5th August, 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 21, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Revision No.
197 of 2013 (Surendra & Others vs. State of U.P. & Another), whereby the aforesaid criminal revision preferred against the summoning order dated 28th February, 2013 has been dismissed.
The present application came up for admission on 16th September, 2016 and this Court passed the following interim order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the records.
Earlier FIR relating to case crime no. 165 of 2012 was lodged by applicant no.-1 Surendra against father of opposite party no.-2 and another person, in which after investigation charge-sheet was filed for offences under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, and for which criminal case no. 809 of 2016 State Vs. Shiv Ram and another is pending. Thereafter, opposite party no.-2 (Sumit son of Shiv Ram) has filed complaint case no. 1411 of 2012 against applicant no.-1 and his family members, in which they were summoned for prosecution of offences u/ss. 323, 394, 395 IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that parties are neighbours who reside in of same village, and there may be possibility of settlement of dispute through mediation.
Request for referring the matter for mediation is accepted. But at that time for placing both sides of mediation on same pedestal, proceedings of both above-mentioned cases should be stayed.
The matter is referred for mediation before Mediation and Conciliation Centre High Court, Allahabad, which shall also issue notice to Shiv Ram, father of the opposite party no.-2 and afford opportunity of hearing at the time of talks of compromise. Mediation proceedings will be concluded within six months and accordingly report will be sent to this Court.
Till next date of listing, no coercive order shall be taken against the the applicants in complaint case no. 1411 of 2012, (Sumit Vs. Surendra and Others) u/ss 323, 394 and 395 of IPC, P.S.-Mirzapur, District Shahjahanpur, and criminal case no. 809 of 2016 State Vs. Shiv Ram & Another, u/ss 323, 504, 506, 395, 452 IPC (relating to 165 of 2012).
List after receipt of report of mediation centre."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 16th September, 2016, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. However, no agreement could be arrived at between the parties in the mediation proceedings. Consequently, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad submitted its report dated 16th December, 2016 containing the aforesaid fact and referred the matter to the Court for further orders.
Subsequently, the present application came up before the Court on 20th April, 2018 and it was submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court. Consequently, the Court passed the following order:
"On the case being taken up today, learned counsel for both the parties submitted that though mediation between the parties has failed, however, compromise has arrived at between the parties out of Court. They further submitted that a week's time be granted to them to file a joint affidavit in this regard.
Let a joint affidavit regarding compromise be filed within a week as prayed for.
List this matter on 20.04.2018."
In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 11th April, 2018, a joint affidavit dated 19th April, 2018 has been filed, which has been sworn by the applicant no.1 as well as the opposite party no.2. In the joint affidavit, it has been duly stated that during the pendency of the present criminal misc. application, the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise. Subsequently, the compromise so entered into between the parties was reduced to writing by way of a deed of compromise dated 5th January, 2018. The said deed of compromise has duly been attested by means of a notary affidavit.
On the strength of the aforesaid, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that since the dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute and the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case. He, therefore, submits that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may itself quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case to do complete justice between the parties instead of relegating them to the court below Mr. Daksha Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the facts, as noted herein above. According to him, no surviving cause of action remains with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned complaint case filed by him in view of the deed of compromise dated 5th January, 2018. As such, it is urged that the opposite party no.2 now cannot have any grievance in case the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case are quashed by this Court.
This Court is not unmindful of 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, 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. 1411 of 2012 (Sumit vs. Surendra & Others), under Sections 323, 394 and 395 I.P.C. Police Station Mirzapur, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Shahjahanpur, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 31.8.2018 Sushil/-