Allahabad High Court
Vinay Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16110 of 2020
Applicant :- Vinay Gupta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pratibha Vohra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in prayer clause during the course of the day.
Heard Ms. Pratibha Vohra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Pooja, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 16.06.2019 and challenging the entire proceedings of Case no. 37252 of 2019 (State vs. Vinay Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1155 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District - Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
On 05.11.2020, following order was passed:
"Heard Mrs. Pratibha Vohra, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 16th June, 2019, taking cognizance order dated 1st October, 2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 37252 of 2019 (State Vs. Vinay Gupta & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 132 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in terms of the compromise dated 17th December, 2019. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
It is submitted on behalf of the parties that the applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that that on account of intervention of well-wishers of applicant and opposite party no.2, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 17th December, 2019 after settling all the disputes, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the present application. It is, thus, 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.
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 13th January, 2021 as fresh before the appropriate Bench.
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 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.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned within a week from today.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid criminal case."
In compliance of the order dated 05.11.2020, the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 19.12.2020 has verified the compromise between the parties after ensuring the presence of the parties along with their counsels. The order dated 19.12.2020 has been annexed with S.A.1 in support of this application.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of the Apex Court:
a) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003) 4 SCC 675;
b) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677;
c) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1;
d) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303;
e) 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 case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceeding of Case no. 37252 of 2019 (State vs. Vinay Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1155 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District - Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, is hereby quashed.
This Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021
Priya
