Allahabad High Court
Beeru Sahu @ Banty vs State Of U.P. & Another on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 29
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2293 of 2019
Applicant :- Beeru Sahu @ Banty
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Amit Kumar Sharma,Archana Yadav,Prabhat Kumar Mishra,Umesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Abhishek Yadav,Satish Kumar,Sunil Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
2. By means of present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for setting aside impugned Charge sheet No. 01 of 2017 dated 31.12.2017 arising out of case crime no. 0314 of 2017 under Section - 323, 504, 506, 336 of I.P.C. & 30 Arms Act, Police Station - Indira Nagar, District - Lucknow, in Criminal Case No. 3025/2018 (State Vs. Beeru Sahu @ Banty) and set aside the entire criminal proceeding pending the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Room No. 32 Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 3025/2018 (State Vs. Beeru Sahu @ Banty) under Section 323, 504, 506, 336 of I.P.C. & 30 Arms Acct, Police Station - Indira Nagar, District - Lucknow on the basis of compromise between petitioner and respondent No. 2 in the interest of justice.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that this Court by means of order dated 04.04.2019, directed the parties to appear before Senior Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Senior Registrar on the date fixed and the Senior Registrar has verified the compromise and a report dated 14.12.2020 to this effect has been submitted for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case may be quashed in view of the compromise dated 03.04.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicants as well as opposite party no. 2 have compromised the dispute and as such opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the present case against the applicants.
5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate have stated that they have no objection in case the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed in the light of the compromise.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
8. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.
9. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the applicants and the private respondents and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served will be served by allowing the applicants to be prosecuted in the said trial, therefore the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed, accordingly this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 4.1.2021
Ravi/
