High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135377 Court No. - 92 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10366 of 2023 Applicant :- Dilshad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Madan Singh Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Prashant Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Report dated 05.04.2023 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Moradabad regarding verification of compromise deed, Paper No. 48B, has been received, which is taken on record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 30.11.2021, summoning order dated 18.04.2018 as well as charge-sheet dated 30.11.2017 being Charge-sheet No. 182/2017, in Case No. 324/2018, in Case Crime No. 309/2017 (State Vs. Dilshad and others) under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad pending in the court Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5, Moradabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an F.I.R. was registered u/s 452, 323, 324, 504, 506, IPC by one Noor Mohammad against four named accused persons. After the investigation, parties have come to terms and in this regard a compromise deed was jotted down between the parties on 21.10.2021, annexed as Annexure-13 to the petition. It is further contended by the counsel that when this compromise deed was filed before the court below, the same has been rejected vide order dated 30.11.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the parties have come to terms and have buried their differences and disputes. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the compromise, whereupon both the contesting parties have made their signatures and it was stated that they have entered into compromise and have sorted out their differences and disputes. It was also prayed by way of compromise that the impugned proceeding against the applicants may be quashed in the light of compromise. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also nodded in affirmative on the factum of compromise and submits that the matter has been compounded and the opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the matter any more against the applicants. It has also been submitted that he has instruction from his client not to oppose this 482 application and he has no objection if the proceedings pending against the applicants may be quashed in the light of the compromise. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:- (i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303. ACC 675. (4)