Ram Kumar Jaiswal And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13009 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6339 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Kumar Jaiswal And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Sri Amitabh Tripathi, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

Heard Sri Jaikaran, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Amitabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 15.7.2006 passed in Session Trial No. 378 of 2010 (State Vs. Ram Kumar and others) arising out of Complaint Case no. 2210 of 2010, Aditya Kumar Vs. Ram Kumar & others, under sections 324, 452, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148 IPC, P.S. Sareni, District Raebareli, pending in the Court of learned A.S.J. Court no. 6, Raebareli including the entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case.

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 16.5.2022 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application and the same has also been verified by the court below on 9.6.2022. It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) and has submitted that since the mater has been compromised between the parties amicably, hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution of the applicant in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the opp. party no.2, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further with the matter.

In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 16.5.2022, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014), Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another,J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

The present application is accordingly allowed.

Order Date :- 14.9.2022

A.