Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21671 of 2019 Applicant :- Swapnil Singh Kushwaha And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of applicants, Sri Prem Prakash Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned Charge sheet dated 16.01.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 26.04.2019 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and entire proceedings of Case No. 12752/2019 (arising out of Case Crime No. 570/2018), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 06.12.2018 between the parties.
Learned counsel on behalf of applicants submits that on 06.12.2018 the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 given application alongwith compromise deed to the investigating officer. A copy of the application alongwith compromise deed dated 06.12.2018 has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.
Sri Prem Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 stated that the parties have entered into compromise, the said fact has been mentioned in para 4 of the short counter affidavit.
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.
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 complaint case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Arti