Allahabad High Court
Ram Prasad Mishra And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18802 of 2020
Applicant :- Ram Prasad Mishra And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,J B Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 proceedings of Case No. 1061 of 2014 (State vs. Anand Gopal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 8 of 2013, under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Varanasi, presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, District Varanasi in terms of the compromise. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
On the matter being taken up, on 11.01.2021 the Court passed following order:-
" Sri J. B. Singh Advocate filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Short Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 1061 of 2014 (State vs. Anand Gopal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 8/2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Varanasi, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Varanasi in terms of the compromise entered between the parties. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
It is submitted that applicant nos. 1 to 4 are mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law (Jeth) of opposite party no.2 respectively. It is further submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 20.12.2019. A copy whereof has been filed as annexure-6 to the affidavit accompanying the present application. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also accepts that the parties have arrived at a compromise and copy of the same has also been enclosed along with the counter affidavit which shall be filed today in the registry.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
Put up this case on 23.02.2021 as fresh before the appropriate Bench showing the name of Sri J. B. Singh as counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure the presence of both the parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 23.02.2021 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.
Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit accompanying the present application within a week from today.
Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, 11.01.2021, the Court concerned vide order dated 05.02.2021 has verified the compromise after ensuring the presence of the parties. However, it has also noted that since Ramawanti Devi is not in a position to attend the Court, the photograph and signature of Ramawanti Devi has been identified by his counsel on giving her consent. The certified copy of the compromise application filed by the parties containing the verification made by the learned Magistrate and order passed by the learned Magistrate has been annexed as Annexure No. S.A.2 to the supplementary affidavit, filed by the learned counsel for the applicants.
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.
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, entire proceedings of Case No. 1061 of 2014 (State vs. Anand Gopal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 8 of 2013, under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Varanasi, presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, District Varanasi, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021
Monika
