Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 633 (ALL)

Devender v. State of U. P.

2016-02-22

RAMESH SINHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. 2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5/9 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 148 of 2013 (State Vs. Mohar Singh and others), under Sections 452, 323, 324, 325, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Adersh Mandi, District Shamali, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge Kairana, District Shamali. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants and opposite party no. 2 have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a compromise and filed Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 19837 of 2015 before this Court for quashing the proceedings against the applicants on the basis of said compromise and this Court vide order dated 4.8.2015 dispose of the said application directing the applicants to appear before the Magistrate concerned, who shall verify the compromise. He submits that in pursuance of the said order, applicants appeared before the court below on which the learned Magistrate verified the compromise entered into between the parties vide order dated 26.8.2015 copy of which has been annexed as annexure-4 to the present application, hence the proceeding against the applicants be quashed. 4. Learned AGA has admitted the fact of the compromise. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 as well as Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicants and opp. party No.2 have compromised the dispute and as such opp. party No.2 does not want to press the present case against the applicants. The opp. party No. 2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is to go on. 6. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably. 7. In this regard the view taken by the Apex court in the case of Narinder Singh & ors. Vs. 6. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably. 7. In this regard the view taken by the Apex court in the case of Narinder Singh & ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr (supra) and Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant finds force that this court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceeding. 8. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence the proceeding of the aforesaid case hereby quashed. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed.