Allahabad High Court
Vivek vs State Of U.P.And Another on 14 October, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 51 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8483 of 2020 Applicant :- Vivek Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 354B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act as well as charge sheet dated 10.04.2017, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Baghpat (State Vs. Vivek and others), pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier an Application U/s 482 No. 40489 of 2019 (Vivek Vs. State of U.P. & others) was filed for quashing of proceedings and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2019 was disposed of the aforesaid application with a direction to the court concerned that in case any compromise application is filed by the applicant, the same may be verified after ensuring the presence of the parties accordingly. On the application of the parties, compromise filed before the concerned court and has been verified by the order dated 09.01.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baghpat and the same is annexed as Annexure 9 to this application. The order itself goes to show that the parties were present before the court concerned and have been identified by their counsel.
It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties was purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the informant owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. It is further argued that there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries and at present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that 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 applicants.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
(i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675;
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1;
(iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;
(v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;
In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the 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. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been expatiated in detail.
From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307, 354B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Baghpat (State Vs. Vivek and others), pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat, is hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.10.2020 Priya