Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13620 of 2018 Applicant :- Vaishali And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed a short counter affidavit alongwith his Vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 884 of 2017 (Babu Ram Vs. Amit Thakur and others) under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354B and 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Dhanaura, District-Amroha.
The basis of the present application is the compromise dated 28.02.2018 entered into between the parties, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure-9 to the affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicants invited that attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application and on the basis thereof, he contends that since the compromise has already been entered into between the parties, which has also been filed before the court below as is explicit from the certified copy of the same, no useful purpose shall be served in permitting the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint to continue before the court below.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing behalf of opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid submissions urged by the learned counsel for the applicants. He has invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the short counter affidavit filed by him and on the basis thereof, submits that since the parties have already compromised the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint, case may be quashed to do complete justice between the parties.
It is worthwhile to note that the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 has been sworn by the opposite party no.2 himself. Therefore, the Court has no reason to doubt the genuineness of the compromise so entered into between the parties.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the following cases:
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 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 judgments noted above 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 Complaint Case No. 884 of 2017 (Babu Ram Vs. Amit Thakur and others) under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354B and 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Dhanaura, District-Amroha, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 YK