Allahabad High Court
Julfikar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 12 April, 2022
Author: Umesh Kumar
Bench: Umesh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 82 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18564 of 2021 Applicant :- Julfikar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Santosh Kumar Singh,learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No. 460 of 2017 (State vs. Julfikar and others), arising out of Criminal Crime No.267 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 308 and 336 I.P.C., Police Station- Swar, District-Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Court No.2, Rampur in terms of the compromise entered into between parties on 08.03.2022.
It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned which has been properly verified by the court concerned. The certified copy of the said compromise has been filed as Annexure-01 to the supplementary affidavit.
The attention of this Court has been drawn to 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 cases, 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. And 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 complaint case.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to trial court concerned within a week for communication and necessary action.
Order Date :- 12.4.2022 MN/-