Allahabad High Court
Harvindar Singh @ Hargindar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26379 of 2019
Applicant :- Harvindar Singh @ Hargindar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Vakalatnama and affidavit filed by Shri Harinad Singh 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 charge sheet dated 12.5.2018, Cognizance order dated 7.12.2018 and proceedings of criminal case no. 20171 of 2018, State Vs. Harvindar Singh @ Hargindar, arising out of case crime no. 145 of 2018, under section 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (d) and 3(1)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act. P.S. Meerganj, District Bareilly pendindg in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act/2nd Additional District Jude, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on intervention of respected persons, the applicant and O.P No.2 have entered into a compromise and they do not want to further prosecute the applicant in order to maintain good and harmonious relation between them.
An Affidavit on behalf of O.P. No.2 has also been filed wherein in para 5, it has been stated that on intervention of respected persons and his relatives he has entered into a compromise with the applicant and he does not want to further peruse the criminal case against the applicant. A copy of the said compromise has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit.
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 criminal case no. 20171 of 2018, State Vs. Harvindar Singh @ Hargindar, arising out of case crime no. 145 of 2018, under section 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (d) and 3(1)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act. P.S. Meerganj, District Bareilly pendindg in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act/2nd Additional District Jude, Bareilly. are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
R
