Sunil Rathor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183739

Court No. - 91

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21841 of 2023 Applicant :- Sunil Rathor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit annexing the verification report as well as compromise affidavit entered into between the parties made by the court below has been filed and the same are taken on record.

¶5

Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the state.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning / cognizance order dated 03.10.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad as well as proceedings of Case No. 1901 of 2020 arising out of case crime no. 443 of 2019, under sections 504, 506 I.P.C. as well as charge-sheet no. 207 of 2020 dated 05.09.2020, P.S. Fatehgarh Kotwali, DistrictFarrukhabad.

¶7

Pursuant to order dated 04.07.2023, the parties appeared before the court below for verification of settlement / compromise, who were duly identified by their counsel's, while verifying the compromise / settlement dated 18.07.2023.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, opposite party no.2 has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶10

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

¶11

In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in noncompoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances of the case, initially an F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against two named and one unknown persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet only for the offence under Sections 504, 506 IPC against four accused persons namely, Sunil Rathor, Sonu Solanki, Kaushalendra Pratap Singh and Shailendra Sharma. Opposite party no.2 arrived at compromise with only the applicant- Sunil Rathor and filed the same before this Court, which was sent for verification vide order dated 04.07.2023. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, compromise has been verified by the trial court vide order dated 18.07.2023 as the compromise has been entered into between the opposite party no.2 and the applicantSunil Rathor.

¶13

Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.

¶14

In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶15

The entire proceedings of summoning / cognizance order dated 03.10.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad as well as proceedings of Case No. 1901 of 2020 arising out of case crime no. 443 of 2019, under sections 504, 506 I.P.C. as well as charge-sheet no. 207 of 2020 dated 05.09.2020, P.S. Fatehgarh Kotwali, District- Farrukhabad only against the applicant - Sunil Rathor are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.9.2023//Sanjeet

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Rathor v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Rathor 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

Yogesh Kumar @ Yugesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhlaq Ansari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arshad Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manju Gautam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.