Allahabad High Court
Ravikant Rajoriya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 February, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14082 of 2020
Applicant :- Ravikant Rajoriya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A,Vishal Agarwal
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the entire material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding alongwith the charge sheet dated 30.07.2018 and cognizance order dated 14.08.2018 in Case No. 95/2018 (State of U.P. vs. Ravikant and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 77/2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Hathras in pursuance to the compromise dated 29.07.2020 between the parties.
On the matter being taken up, on 24th September, 2020, the Court passed following order:
" Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings along with the charge sheet dated 30.07.2018 and the cognizance order dated 14.08.2018, in Case No. 95 of 2018 [State of U.P. Vs. Ravikant & others], arising out of Case Crime No. 77 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, Hathras, in pursuance to the compromise dated 29.07.2020 between the parties, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hathras.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the dispute.
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. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
List after two months.
Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant."
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 24.09.2020, the Civil Judge, Hathras, has sent his letter dated 17.11.2020 alongwith the order dated 31.10.2020 wherein it has been mentioned that the compromise so arrived at between the parties, has been verified.
Learned counsel for the applicant 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.
On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2 has 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,
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 charge sheet dated 30.07.2018 and cognizance order dated 14.08.2018 in Case No. 95/2018 (State of U.P. vs. Ravikant and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 77/2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Hathras, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 8.2.2021
Monika
