Allahabad High Court
Shanti Swaroop And 5 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. - 18315 of 2020
Applicant :- Shanti Swaroop And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Darwari Lal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing impugned charge sheet dated 22.12.2018 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 149 of 2019 (State vs. Shanti Swaroop and others), pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Senior Division) Rampur, under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Milak District Rampur arising out of Case Crime No. 503 of 2018 as well as the impugned order of cognizance dated 12.02.2019 taken upon the aforesaid charge sheet 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 04.01.2021 the Court passed following order:-
" Heard Sri Darwari Lal, 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 dated 22.12.2018 and cognizance order dated 12.02.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 149 of 2019 (State Vs. Shanti Swaroop and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 503 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Milak, District- Rampur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial (Senior Division) Rampur.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that 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 - 3 of this application.
Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.
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 after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of four weeks from today. Upon due verification, the court below shall send its report to this Court.
Put up this case on 18th February, 2021 as fresh.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, 04.01.2021, the report of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur has been placed before this Court. From the perusal of the order dated 27.01.2021, it is clear that verification order was passed after ensuring the presence of the parties. Therefore, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have entered into compromise 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.
Opposite party no. 2 was present at the time of verification of the compromise before the Trial Court, therefore, the matter is being decided without issuing notices to the opposite party no. 2
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 impugned charge sheet dated 22.12.2018 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 149 of 2019 (State vs. Shanti Swaroop and others), pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Senior Division) Rampur, under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Milak District Rampur, arising out of Case Crime No. 503 of 2018 as well as the impugned order of cognizance dated 12.02.2019 taken upon the aforesaid charge sheet, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
However, in case the opposite party has any grievance, she is free to move an application before this Court.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021
Monika
