Sandeep Rathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 76

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 557 of 2020

Applicant :- Sandeep Rathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Rana

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. A.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Rana, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 03.07.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2153 of 2019 (State vs. Sandeep Rathi) arising out of Case Crime No. 356 of 2019, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 388, 3866, 506, 120B, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Loni, District- Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Ghaziabad on account of compromise entered into the parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties were 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.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that earlier, for the dispute between the same parties, application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 47969 of 2019 has been filed by the applicant wherein this Court has allowed the same vide order dated 08.01.2020 and in the order itself, it has been mentioned that the applicant and the opposite party no.2 are present before

¶9

the Court and stated that they have entered into compromise, therefore, there is no need to call the parties again for verifying the same, copy of which order has been passed on to the Court today, is kept on record.

¶10

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.

¶11

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :

¶12

(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;

¶13

(iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;

¶14

(v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶20

Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2153 of 2019 (State vs. Sandeep Rathi) arising out of Case Crime No. 356 of 2019, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 388, 3866, 506, 120B, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Loni, District- Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.

¶21

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.1.2020 JK Yadav

Sandeep Rathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Rathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shubham Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Indresh Raja Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Kumar Jatav and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another