Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam Alias Boby vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26253 of 2019
Applicant :- Ghanshyam Alias Boby
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Vakalatnama and short counter affidavit filed by Shri Vidypati Tripathi on behalf of the first informant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned AGA for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.S.T. NO. 16 of 2019, State Vs. Ghanshyam alias Boby arising out of case crime no. 0288 of 2018, under section 504,506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (s) SC/ST Act. P.S. Phaphund, District Auraiya, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act. F.T.C. First, Auraiya.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during pendency of the present proceeding, the applicant and O.P. No.2 has entered into a compromise dated 5.3.2019 stating there in that the applicant and O.P. No.2 are the resident of the same Mohalla and in order to maintain good and harmonious relation between them she does not want to further prosecute the applicant and as such the present case be quashed.
An Affidavit on behalf of O.P. No.2 has also been filed wherein in para 8 and 10, it has been stated that on intervention of respected persons and her relatives she has entered into a compromise with the applicant and she does not want to further peruse the criminal case against the applicant.
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 complaint case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of S.S.T. No. 16 of 2019, State Vs. Ghanshyam alias Boby arising out of case crime no. 0288 of 2018, under section 504,506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (s) SC/ST Act. P.S. Phaphund, District Auraiya, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act. F.T.C. First, Auraiya are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
R
