Allahabad High Court
Reyaz Ahmad Ansari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 January, 2021
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 541 of 2021
Applicant :- Reyaz Ahmad Ansari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Girdhar Prasad Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Girdhar Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Pradeep Shingh Sengar, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing a counter affidavit alongwith his vakalatnama in court today, which is taken on record.
2.Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-shett dated 26.07.2013 submitted in Case Crime No. 270 of 2013 under Sections 353, 332, 506 I.P.C, P.S. Kasimabad, District-Ghazipur, cognizance taking order dated 06.08.2013 as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No. 399 of 2013 ( State Vs. Reyaz Ahmad Ansari) under Sectiion 353, 332, 506 I.P.C. P.S.-Kasimabad, District-Ghazipur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mohammadabad, District-Ghazipur.
3. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which occurred on 11.07.2013, opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. dated 13.07.2013, which was registered as Case Crime No. 270 of 2013 under Sections 353, 332, 506 I.P.C, P.S. Kasimabad, District-Ghazipur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant-Reyaz Ahmad Ansari has been nominated as solitary named accused.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R., Police proceeded with statutory investigation in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Upon completion of statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number, Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet dated 26.07.2013 whereby accused applicant has been charge-sheeted under Sections 332, 506 and 353 I.P.C. Upon submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 06.08.2013. As a consequence of above, criminal case mentioned above came to be registered against applicant.
5. During pendency of above mentioned case, parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, an application dated 05.11.2020 duly supported by an affidavit was filed before court below. By means of this application, it was prayed that proceedings of criminal case be terminated. Certified copy of the application dated 05.11.2020 is on record as Annexure 3 to the affidavit.
6. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that since dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute and parties have amicably settled their dispute by way of compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that interest of justice shall better be served in case entire proceeding of above mentioned case are quashed by this court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of relegating the parties to court below.
7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 could not oppose the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. Learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 further contends that since the application dated 05.11.2020 has been filed by opposite party no.2 and he himself has comprised with applicant out side the court, opposite party no.2 cannot have any objection in case the matter is finally decided on the basis of said compromise.
8. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
iv. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
v. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296]
8. In the aforesaid judgments, 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 some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail.
9. 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 above mentioned case.
10. Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 399 of 2013 ( State Vs. Reyaz Ahmad Ansari) under Sectiion 353, 332, 506 I.P.C. P.S.-Kasimabad, District-Ghazipur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mohammadabad, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021
YK
