Allahabad High Court
Pravin Kumar Mishra And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17119 of 2020
Applicant :- Pravin Kumar Mishra And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Nitin Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for challenging charge sheet dated 19.06.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 9921 of 2018 (State vs. Pravin Kumar & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 11 of 2018, under Sections 498, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District - Allahabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 17, Allahabad.
Earlier, applicants had approached this Court by means of Application U/s 482 No. 29020 of 2019 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2019 was pleased to dispose of the application with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise.
An application dated 06.08.2019 was placed along with a copy of the order of this Court before the concerned court for compliance with a request to comply the order passed by this Court and the same has been decided on 05.12.2019, as is clear from the page 51 of the application. From the order dated 05.12.2019, it is clear that the presence of the parties were ensured along with their counsels and the compromise deed has been verified accordingly. Since, from the order, it is clear that opposite party no. 2 was present before the concerned court and the order has been passed in her presence, therefore, there is no requirement of issuing any notice to opposite party no. 2 and the matter has been decided at this stage.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
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 wherein 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 proceedings of Criminal Case no. 9921 of 2018 (State vs. Pravin Kumar & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 11 of 2018, under Sections 498, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District - Allahabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 17, Allahabad, is hereby quashed.
This Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021
Priya
