Allahabad High Court
Ikram And 5 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32453 of 2022
Applicant :- Ikram And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Vide order dated 10.1.2023, the investigating officer concerned was directed to appear in person on 18.1.2023 explaining why he has not lodged the FIR under section 307 IPC. In compliance of the order dated 10.1.2023, Sri Vijay Pal Singh, Circle Officer, Bhogaon, District Mainpuri is present and he has filed a personal affidavit and in paragraph no.4 of the said affidavit it has been mentioned that at the time of lodging the FIR, the injured was appear before the investigating officer but the nature of allegation did not attract the provision of 307 IPC, hence, the investigating officer has not added section 307 IPC in the FIR.
Sri R.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that as per injury report, the injuries of the injured were found in a simple nature and no fracture has been seen. Hence the offence under section 307 IPC is not made out against the applicants.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Deepanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 9.8.2020 along with proceeding of Case no. 499 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Ikram and others), under sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 IPC and sections 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha) and 3 (2) (VKa) SC/ST, Act, P.S. Behat, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Special Judge/SC/ST Act, Room No. 2, Saharanpur on the basis of compromise dated 22.7.2022 between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 22.7.2022 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicants and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 22.7.2022 which has been filed by the applicants as annexure no. 5 to the affidavit filed in support of application, 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.
It is made clear that the personal appearance of the aforesaid officer is exempted.
Order Date :- 18.1.2023
A.
