Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44292 of 2019 Applicant :- Ziya Ui Rehman And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bharat Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Vikas Rana, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Charge-sheet dated 01.08.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case. 129 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 145 of 2018, under Sections 323, 336, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Shergarh, District-Bareilly, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) F.T.C., Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.
In the above regard, a compromise has been entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.
In compliance of the order of the Court dated 7th December, 2019, the applicant no.4, namely, Mohd. Imran and the opposite party no.2, namely, Smt. Farha Bi are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them. The applicant no.4 Mohd. Imran is present on behalf of the other applicants in the Court today, therefore the personal appearance of other applicants exempted. The applicant no.4 and opposite party no.2 state that they have entered into compromise.
On the instruction received, learned counsel for applicants submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
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 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the Charge-sheet dated 01.08.2018 as well as the proceedings of Case No. 129 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 145 of 2018, under Sections 323, 336, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Shergarh, District-Bareilly, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) F.T.C., Bareilly, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019/JK Yadav