Allahabad High Court
Siddhartha Jain And Another 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. - 16716 of 2020
Applicant :- Siddhartha Jain And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rama Shanker Yadav,Rama Shankar Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rama Shanker Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 19.02.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6899 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Vivek Jain and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Moolganj, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kanpur Nagar.
On the matter being taken up, on 18.11.2020 the Court passed following order:-
"Sri Rama Shankar Yadav, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama along with a short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in the Registry today.
Heard Sri R.K. Mishra, 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 cognizance order dated 19.02.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6899 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Vivek Jain and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Moolganj, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet had been submitted, 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 page - 70 of this application.
Learned counsel appearing for the 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 pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of one month from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
Put up this case on 20th January, 2021 as fresh.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
When the case is next listed, the name of Sri Rama Shankar Yadav, Advocate be shown as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 in the cause list."
Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 18.11.2020, report of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no.1, Kanpur Nagar dated 08.12.2020 has been placed before this Court, wherein, the compromise deed has been verified after ensuing presence of the parties and the statements of parties have also been recorded.
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 cognizance order dated 19.02.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6899 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Vivek Jain and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2018, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Moolganj, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kanpur Nagar, 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
