Allahabad High Court
Manish Raj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17844 of 2020
Applicant :- Manish Raj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Gupta,Dinesh Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri O.P. Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in Court today, which is taken on record.
Joint affidavit has been filed on behalf of both the parties in Court today, which is also taken on record.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 01.06.2020 and cognizance order dated 05.10.2020 as well as the entire proceedings in Case No. 30418 of 2020 (State Vs. Manish Raj), arising out of Case Crime No. 424 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 307, 435, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Kavi Nagar, District - Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties was purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. It is further argued that there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries and at present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in view of the settlement reached between the parties, applicant - Manish Raj, informant - Smt. Surbhi Gupta are present before this Court, who have been identified by their counsels. A joint affidavit has been filed by the parties to show that they have amicably settled the dispute and have decided to live separately and has no grudge against each other, a divorce petition under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act has also been filed. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He has also drawn attention of the Court that the compromise has entered into between the parties outside the court with the presence of some respective persons and now both the parties having no grievances with each other and are living separately.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
(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;
In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the 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 expatiated in detail.
From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between 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 as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings in Case No. 30418 of 2020 (State Vs. Manish Raj), arising out of Case Crime No. 424 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 307, 435, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Kavi Nagar, District - Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, is hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021
Priya
