Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar Singh And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 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. - 46810 of 2019 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tanu Roopanwal,Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vimal Dharm Yadav Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Vimal Dharm Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Charge-sheet dated 26th May, 2019 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 774 of 2019 (State Vs. Santosh Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 0159 of 2018, under Sections 147, 384, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Meja, District-Allahabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Allahabad.
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 applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries. 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 written compromise has been entered into between the parties, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying the present application.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also filed an affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2, wherein in paragraph nos. 6 to 8 it has been stated as follows:
"6. That it is important to here that compromise has been made between the parties in which the informant has very categorically stated that he does not wish to prosecute the applicant any further, as the matter has been compromise between the party. Photostate copy of the compromise letter along with the affidavit is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit.
7. That the deponent in the light of the compromise entered into between him and the applicants does not want to prosecute the applicants any further in respect of the first information report registered as case crime no. 0159 of 2018.
8. That the deponent also want to withdraw the case against the applicants lodged by him in light of the compromise dated 5.8.2108."
In compliance of the order of the Court dated 7th January, 2020, applicant no.1, namely, Santosh Kumar Singh and opposite party no.2, namely, Ajay Kumar Singh are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them.
On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 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 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 774 of 2019 (State Vs. Santosh Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 0159 of 2018, under Sections 147, 384, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Meja, District-Allahabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Allahabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 7.1.2020 Sushil/-