AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SANGEETA @ SOMTI
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Amar Singh and Others
Sangeeta @ Somti
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The applicants, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Complaint Case No.2828 of 2010 titled as Smt. Sangeeta vs. Amar Singh & others under Sections 323 & 504 IPC. The applicants also seek to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court.
(2.) Taking recourse to Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., respondent-Smt. Sangeeta lodged a complaint against 10 accused persons (applicants herein) on 23.12.2008 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. After recording the statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., the cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, vide order dated 20.10.2010 and accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by accused-applicants.
(3.) A Compounding Application (CRMA No.1975 of 2013) is filed before this Court by the parties. Learned counsel for the parties made a prayer that since the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court, the proceedings of Complaint Case No.2828/2010 titled as Smt. Sangeeta vs. Amar Singh & others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Affidavits are filed by Smt. Sangeeta (complainant) and one of the accused, namely, Amar Singh with the prayer that since they have entered into a compromise and the complainant does not wish to prosecute the accused-applicants, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the accused applicants be quashed. Complainant-respondent Smt. Sangeeta is present in person, who is duly identified by her counsel Mr. R. K. S. Verma, Advocate. One of the applicants, namely, Amar Singh is also present in person in the Court, who is duly identified by his counsel Mr. S. K. Shandilya, Advocate. The complainant stated before this Court that she is not keen to prosecute the accused-applicants and is no more interested to proceed further with the complaint case, as the compromise took place between the parties.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.