Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 18 February, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2166 of 2019 Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Sinha Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of SriPiyush Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 820 of 2017 (State Vs. Anuj Kumar Srivastava & others) so far it relates to the applicant pending before the A.C.J. (JD)-6, Allahabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 247 of 2014, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station George Town, District Allahabad in view of the compromise arrived between the parties.
From both the sides joint affidavit has been filed on 17.01.2019 wherein para no. 7 it has been stated that the opposite party no. 2 has entered into a compromise with the accused applicant Mukesh Kumar and not with other accused persons in the present Case Crime No. 247 of 2014 and wants that the proceedings against the accused applicant be quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicant has place reliance upon Parambir Singh Gill Vs. Malkiat Kaur 2009 LawSuit (P&H) 1634, relevant para of which is quoted below:
"Therefore, in view of the compromise that has been entered into between the petitioner and the complainant, the complaint (Annexure P1) is liable to be quashed qua the petitioner. The incident in respect of the other accused in the complaint (Annexure P1) is different and separate from that witht he petitioner. As such the Sarabjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2007 3 RCR (Cri) 479 (P&H), money was taken by the accused in the said case for sending the son of the complainant abroad, but the son of the complainant was sent to some other destination. The complainant had settled the dispute with the petitioner in the said case but not with the other accused who had also filed the petitioner in this Court for quashing of the complaint. This Court quashed the complainant qua the petitioner in the said case by making it clear that the proceedings against the other accused would continue."
In the aforesaid case the compromise has been partly allowed against one of the accused and the proceedings against the said accused was quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the compromise being allowed.
As per the F.I.R., the occurrence took place on 15.06.2014 at about 08:30 AM, the accused aapplicant along with other co-accused is said to have been abused using caste indicative words and caused injuries to opposite party no. 2 with fists and kicks. Now dispute is stated to have been settled between the parties i.e. accused applicant Mukesh Kumar Srivastava and opposite party no. 2 Ravi Kumar.
In view of the law laid down upon Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, this being a dispute between the two sides, which is of private nature, the proceedings of the aforesaid case deserve to be quashed as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceeding pending, there being no possibility of conviction.
Ordered accordingly.
The proceeding in above mentioned case stands quashed only against the present accused Mukesh Kumar Srivastava.
In the result, the instant application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 18.2.2020 VPS