Allahabad High Court
Rahul Ahirwar And 4 Others 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. - 238 of 2020
Applicant :- Rahul Ahirwar And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Utsav Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh, Advocate assisted by Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Utsav Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 16.12.2018 as well as proceedings of case no. 247 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of case crime no. 0017 of 2018, P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Lalitpur pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur in terms of the compromise.
On the matter being taken up, on 06.01.2020 the Court passed following order:-
"Vakalatnama filed by Shri Utsav Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Utsav Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 16.12.2018 as well as proceedings of case no. 247 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of case crime no. 0017 of 2018, P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Lalitpur pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur in terms of the compromise.
It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. 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.
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.
Put up this case on 17.02.2020 as fresh before the appropriate Bench.
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 31.01.2020 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 a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise to the court concerned through FAX within three days.
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."
Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 06.01.2020, a report of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitput daed 19.03.2020 has been placed along with compromise deed, wherein, it has been stated that the compromise has been verified after ensuring the presence of the parties, upon due verification, an order dated 28.02.2020 has been passed by the concerned court below, which has been annexed as annexure no.SA1 to the supplementary affidavit in support of this application.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, the opposite party no.2 has no grievance and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:
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 charge sheet dated 16.12.2018 as well as proceedings of case no. 247 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of case crime no. 0017 of 2018, P.S. Mahila Thana, District- Lalitpur pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021
JK Yadav
