Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Rathi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 January, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47969 of 2019 Applicant :- Sandeep Rathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri Deepak Rana, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Applicant no.1, namely, Sandeep Rathi and opposite party no.2 Kailash Chand Singhal, duly identified by their counsel, are present in person. Their signatures have also been verified by their counsel. The parties state that they have entered into compromise.
Heard Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Rana, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 03.07.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.2154 of 2019 (State Vs. Sandeep Rathi), arising out of Case Crime No.343 of 2019, under Sections 386, 506, 34 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, an 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 real incident. There was never any criminal intent on part of the applicant 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 have made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties 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, namely, Kailash Chand Singhal does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case, are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments 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 Cort 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 the case of 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 and also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceeding of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2154 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.343 of 2019, under Sections 386, 506, 34 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 8.1.2020 Anand Sri./-