Allahabad High Court
Bhanu Pratap And 3 Ors vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11769 of 2020
Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap And 3 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
As per the Office report dated 11.11.2020, notice issued to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is received back after service. But no one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the entire material available on record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 1/2019 dated 22.03.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.702 of 2019 (State vs. Bhanu Pratap and others), arising out of Case Crime No.79 of 2019, under Sections 498A,504, 323, 352 IPC, Police Station-Hafijganj, District-Bareilly, pending in the court of learned VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
On the matter being taken up, on 20.11.2020 the Court passed following order:-
"Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 1/2019 dated 22.03.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.702 of 2019 (State vs. Bhanu Pratap and others), arising out of Case Crime No.79 of 2019, under Sections 498A,504, 323, 352 IPC, Police Station-Hafijganj, District-Bareilly, pending in the court of learned VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet had been submitted, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing, copy of compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure no.S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document, which has been annexed as Annexure No.S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of one month from today. Upon due verification, the court below shall send its report to this Court.
Put up on 22nd January, 2021 as fresh.
Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report dated 08.01.2021 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.6, Bareilly has been placed alongwith order dated 08.01.2021 verifying the compromise deed between the parties after ensuring the presence of the parties. Since the order dated 08.01.2021 has been passed after ensuring the presence of the parties, therefore, the matter is decided at this stage after sufficient notice to opposite party nos.2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromised so arrived at between the parties and the same has also been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be quashed by this Court.
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,
In the aforesaid judgments, 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. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No.702 of 2019 (State vs. Bhanu Pratap and others), arising out of Case Crime No.79 of 2019, under Sections 498A,504, 323, 352 IPC, Police Station-Hafijganj, District-Bareilly, pending in the court of learned VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
In case, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have any grievance subsequent to this order, they are free to move application before this Court in this application.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021
JK Yadav
