Allahabad High Court
Harpreet Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 January, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17893 of 2020
Applicant :- Harpreet Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Mishra
connected with
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22789 of 2017
Applicant :- Harpreet Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, 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 charge sheet dated 06.05.2017 and cognizance order dated 04.07.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1140 of 2017 (State vs. Harpeet Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0097 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., III, Bareilly on the basis of compromised so arrived at between the parties.
On the matter being taken up, on 16.12.2020, the Court passed following order:
" Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of case no. 525/2020 arising out of case crime no. 0097/2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Bareilly pending in the court of 7th Additional Civil Judge, Bareilly in terms of the compromise.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise will be filed before the court concerned. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 06.01.2021 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 by the next date.
Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.
Put up this case on 18.01.2021 as fresh."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2020, the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Court, No. 7, A.C.J.M., Bareilly has verified the compromise by order dated 22.12.2020, certified copy of the order/verification report of the order sheet dated 22.12.2020 has been annexed as S.A.1.
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, the proceedings of Case No. 1140 of 2017 (State vs. Harpeet Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0097 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., III, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.1.2021
Monika
