DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as consequential proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.21 of 1993 arising out of Criminal Misc. No.07 of 1992, (Mohan Singh Vs. Tularam and others) under section 395 IPC, Police Station-Achhnera, District-Agra pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Agra on the basis of compromise dated 25.11.2019 between the parties.

(3.) The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. was invoked by the applicants who are four in numbers namely, Devi Singh, Rajendra Singh, Sahab Singh and Ramesh Chandra on one hand and Mohan Singh(opposite party no.2) on the other. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that contesting parties are inter se related to each other. The genesis of the case starts from filing of the complaint case wayback in the year 1992 whereby opposite party no.2 has lodged the complaint against seven persons out of which three persons have already died with the allegation that accused persons have looted Rs.150/- and Rs.125/- from the father of opposite party no.2. After recording the statements under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants, on 02.02.1993, were summoned under section 395 IPC. The next contention is that another application bearing no. 19334 of 1993 titled as 'Tularam and others Vs. State of U.P.' was filed which was eventually disposed of on 06.05.1999. It appears that order of disposal could not be transmitted to the court concerned and since then, the matter was pending unattended. All of a sudden, relying upon the latest judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and other Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 28.03.2018, learned Trial Judge on 22.11.2019 issued N.B.W. against the existing accused/applicants for the incident said to have taken place in the year 1992. It is next contended that though the offence under which the applicants were summoned i.e under section 395 Cr.P.C., is a serious offence triable by the sessions non-compoundable offence but keeping in view the inter se relationship between the contesting parties, intervening period and the amount involved with the intervention of certain common friends on 25.11.2019, both the parties have buried their difference and disputes and they are leading peaceful life.