Compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences, and the court may quash criminal proceedings based on such compromise.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Gupta, J.

1. Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed the vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record. He has also filed joint affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 Arti Yadav.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 27000 of 2018 as well as charge sheet dated 10.6.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 1125 of 2017, State vs. Atul Garg, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. New Agra, District-Agra, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra on the basis of compromise made by the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 states that in view of the dispute pending before the Court, the parties have come to compromise as per the averments made in paragraphs- 4 and 5 of the joint affidavit. Both the parties have agreed to withdraw their cases against each other including the present case and they would file divorce petition with mutual consent under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. The proceeding of another criminal case pending between the parties vide Case No. 15384 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 1133 of 2017 has already been quashed in Application u/s 482 No. 21082 of 2019 vide order dated 28.5.2019.

4. This Court is not unmindful of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of:

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

Wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. 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 explained in detail.

5. 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 complaint case.

6. Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 27000 of 2018 as well as charge sheet dated 10.6.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 1125 of 2017, State vs. Atul Garg, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. New Agra, District-Agra, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra are hereby quashed.

7. The application is, accordingly, allowed.