Asghar & Ors. v. Irshad Ahmad, Santosh Kumar Singh

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 & 3 and Sri Jhamman Ram learned AGA for the State.

This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist assailing the judgment and order dated 04th June, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Sessions Judge, Jyotiba Phule Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2012 in Case No. 3305 of 2010 (Asghar and Ors vs. State of U.P. and another) U/s 323, 325, 504 IPC, P.S. Amroha Nagar, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar.

Today, on the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that a settlement agreement have been entered into between the parties on 18th November, 2023.

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 has prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set aside while allowing the present criminal revision on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties/ a settlement agreement dated 18th November 2023 has been enclosed with the supplementary affidavit.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the dispute between the parties is totally civil in nature which has been given criminal colour. The present proceedings came to be initiated by opposite party no. 2 & 3 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and 2 CRLR No. 2052 of 2012 not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have amicably settled their dispute. In such circumstances, the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 does not wish to press any proceedings against the revisionist.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist or the correctness of the settlement agreement dated 18th November, 2023 brought on record by means of settlement agreement. He also submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party nos. 2 & 3 have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

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

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

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.