Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Ors on 10 December, 2019
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42683 of 2019 Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Misra,Sandeep Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikash Chandra Mishra Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Amit Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Vikash Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 5.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire further proceedings of Case No. 6334 of 2009 (State Vs. Sanjay Mishra & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1502 of 2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Robertsganj, District-Sonbhadra, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by late Smt. Magiriya 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 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 nos. 2 to 5 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 nos. 2 to 5 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 to 5 has filed a joint affidavit of Ananta (opposite party no.1), Rambali (opposite party no.2), Munnaram (opposite party no.3) and Vijay Shankar (opposite party no.4). In paragraphs no. 3, it has been stated as follows:
"3. That opposite party no. 2 to 5 vehemently submit that they do not intend to further prosecute the applicant in the present case. Matter has been decided/settled between parties in a peaceful and amicable manner and there is no ill-will against any person. Further no monetary dispute is remaining between them and on account of settlement dated 1.07.2019, no further or just purpose would be served by lingering the present prosecution."
In compliance of the order of the Court dated 28th November, 2019, the applicant, namely, Sanjay Mishra and the opposite party no.2 to 5, namely, Ananta, Rambali, Munnaram and Vijay Shankar 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 applicant submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2 to 5 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 proceedings of Case No. 6334 of 2009 (State Vs. Sanjay Mishra & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1502 of 2008, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Robertsganj, District-Sonbhadra, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.12.2019 JK Yadav