Allahabad High Court
Bali And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14684 of 2020
Applicant :- Bali And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raksha Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Ram Raksha Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Virendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for challenging charge sheet dated 20.12.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case no. 2942/IX/2020 (State vs. Bali and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bisanda, District - Banda, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.
On 30.09.2020, following order was passed:
"1. Mr. Virendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel states that he will be filing his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 along with compromise affidavit in the Registry today itself.
2. Heard Mr. Ram Raksha Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Virendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no. 178/2019 dated 20.12.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 2942/IX/2020 (State vs. Bali and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bisanda, District-Banda, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.
4. 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 has been annexed as Annexure no.7 to this application.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Put up on 2nd December, 2020 as fresh.
8. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
9. When the case is next listed, the name of Mr. Virendra Kumar Tiwari shall be shown as counsel for the opposite party no.2."
In compliance of the order dated 30.09.2020, the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda has been placed before this Court. As per the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda dated 05.11.2020, parties appeared before the court concerned and their statements have been recorded which have also been placed before this Court. Compromise deed entered into between the parties has been verified.
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 proceedings of Case no. 2942/IX/2020 (State vs. Bali and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bisanda, District - Banda, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda, is hereby quashed.
This Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021
Priya
