Allahabad High Court
Vivek Pandey And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29050 of 2019
Applicant :- Vivek Pandey And Anr
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Dev Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Sri Devesh Vikram, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of first informant, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 6.4.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No. 18 of 2019 (State Vs. Vivek Pandey and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 117 of 2017, under Sections 384, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (Da) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Duddhi, District- Sonbhadra, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Sonbhadra.
On the matter being taken up, Sri Devesh Vikram has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and has stated that the dispute has already been settled outside the Court between the parties and he does not want to further pursue the case against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that a compromise has already been entered into between the applicants and opposite party no. 2, copy of the settlement deed has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the joint affidavit filed today in Court and in para nos. 2 and 3 of the settlement deed, it has been stated that with the intervention of the respected members of the society they have entered into compromise and do not want to further pursue the case in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them and both have jointly prayed that the present proceedings 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.
wherein 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 case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of S.T. No. 18 of 2019 (State Vs. Vivek Pandey and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 117 of 2017, under Sections 384, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (Da) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Duddhi, District- Sonbhadra, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Sonbhadra, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
KU
