Allahabad High Court
Shiv Mohan Pandey @ Lala vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19787 of 2020
Applicant :- Shiv Mohan Pandey @ Lala
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Virendra Kumar Shukla, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing an affidavit alongwith his vakalatnama in court today, which is taken on record.
2.Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Case No. 958 of 2012 (State Vs. Shiv Mohan) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2011 under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C, P.S. Lalapur, District-Allahabad pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Allahabad.
3. Record shows that in respect of certain incident, first informant/opposite party no.2, Amit Kumar Misra lodged an F.I.R. dated 112.12.2011, which was registered as Case Crime No. 97 of 2011 under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C, P.S. Lalapur, District-Allahabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely Ram Mohan Pandey @ Lala, Shiv Mohan @ Munna and Hari Mohan @ Lala have been nominated as named accused.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R., Police proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Upon completion of statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number, Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet dated 14.08.2012 whereby applicant has been charge-sheeted under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. Upon submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by court concerned vide cognizance taking order dated 16.11.2012. As a consequence of above, criminal case mentioned above came to be registered against applicant.
5. During pendency of above mentioned case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. Accordingly, a compromise was drawn on 08.10.2020 which has been verified by means of notary affidavit. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, an application dated 12.10.2020 duly supported by an affidavit was filed by first informant/opposite party no.2 before court below. By means of this application, it was prayed that proceedings of criminal case be terminated in view of the compromise. Certified copy of the application dated 12.10.2020 is on record Annexure 3 to the affidavit as well as Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 in Court today.
6. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged by learned counsel for applicant that since dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute and parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court by way of compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that interest of justice shall better be served in case entire proceeding of above mentioned case are quashed by this court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of relegating the parties to court below.
7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 could not oppose the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. Learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 further contends that since the application dated 12.10.2020 has been filed by opposite party no.2 and he himself has comprised with applicant out side the court, now opposite party no.2 cannot have any objection in case the matter is finally decided on the basis of said compromise.
8. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
iv. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
v. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296]
9. In the aforesaid judgments, 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. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail.
10. 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 above mentioned case.
11. Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. Case No. 958 of 2012 (State Vs. Shiv Mohan) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2011 under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C, P.S. Lalapur, District-Allahabad pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Allahabad., are hereby quashed.
12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021
YK
