HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 6520 of 2016
Applicant :- Ravinder And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Ojha
Hon’ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard Mr. Snajay Kumar Upadhyaya holding brief of Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.7007 of 2015 (Preeti Chaudhary vs. Ravindra Singh and others), under Section 406 I.P.c., Police Station Crime District Loni, Ghaziabad, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Ghaziabad on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, it has been categorically stated in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the present case. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the criminal proceedings giving rise to the present application may be quashed.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
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.
Accordingly, the proceeding of Complaint Case No.7007 of 2015 (Preeti Chaudhary vs. Ravindra Singh and others), under Section 406 I.P.c., Police Station Crime District Loni, Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.2.2020