Allahabad High Court
Narveer Singh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 January, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14842 of 2020
Applicant :- Narveer Singh And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the entire material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Case No. 593 of 2014 (State Vs. Narveer Singh & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2014, under Sections - 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Sr. Div.), Gautam Budh Nagar, on the basis of compromise so arrived at between the parties.
On the matter being taken up, on 07.10.2020 the Court passed following order:-
"1. Sri Awadh Pratap Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and states that he has filed his Vakalatnama in the Registry today.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 593 of 2014 (State Vs. Narveer Singh & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2014, under Sections - 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Sr. Div.), Gautam Budh Nagar.
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 deed has been annexed as Annexure - 7 to this application.
5. 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 two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
6. Put up this case on 9th December, 2020 as fresh.
7. Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IIIrd, Gautam Buddh Nagar has passed the order dated 17.11.2020 verifying the compromise entered into between the parties, certified copy of the compromise deed as well as verification report has been annexed as Annexure No. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit in support of this application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromised so arrived at between the parties and the same has also been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be quashed by this Court.
On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
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 entire proceedings of Case No. 593 of 2014 (State Vs. Narveer Singh & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2014, under Sections - 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Sr. Div.), Gautam Budh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021
JK Yadav
