HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 43976 of 2019
Applicant :- Sanjeev Saxena And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Joint affidavit filed on behalf of Sanjeev Saxena and Ruchi Saxena by Sri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3379/2016, Smt. Ruchi Saxena Vs. Sanjeev Saxena and others, whereby applicant no. 1, under Sectionsection 498A, Section323, Section504, Section506, Section494 IPC and applicant no. 2, under Sectionsections 498A, Section323, Section504 IPC have been summoned, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur.
The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 6 and 7 of the joint affidavit, filed by Sri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
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 proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
Order Date :- 7.12.2019
Arti
