Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25093 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt Uma Jaitely And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.He has also filed a compromise application in the Court today. The same is taken on record. Office to allot a regular number to the compromise application.
Heard Mr. Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2015 (Danish vs. Smt. Uma Jaitely & Others), under Section 384 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station G.R.P. Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E.I.R.), Mughalsarai, Chandauli.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the pendency of the above mentioned complaint case, the parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise entered into outside the Court. He further submits that since the parties have already compromised the dispute between them, 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 powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case in the interest of justice instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
Mr. Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the factum with regard to the compromise so entered into between the parties outside the court is not disputed. He further submits that since the parties have compromised the dispute, no cause of action survives with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned complaint case filed by her.
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, 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 settled their dispute by way of compromise outside the court.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2015 (Danish vs. Smt. Uma Jaitely & Others), under Section 384 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station G.R.P. Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E.I.R.), Mughalsarai, Chandauli, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Sushil/-