Kratarth Agarwal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3289 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 81
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 864 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Kratarth Agarwal And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Maurya
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surjeet Singh Patel
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants, is taken on record.

Heard Mr. Mahendra Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Surjeet Singh Patel, 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 for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 05.11.2019, under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ijjat Nagar, District Bareilly in Case No. 9894 of 2019 (State vs. Kratarth Agrawal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0690 of 2019 as well as quash the cognizance order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

On the matter being taken up, on 13.01.2021 the Court passed following order:-

" Heard Mr. Mahendra Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Surjeet Singh Patel, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 5th November, 2019, cognizance order dated 16th November, 2019 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9894 of 2019 (State Vs. Kratarth Agrawal & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0690 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Ijjat Nagar, District-Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that applicant nos. 1 to 6 are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 respectively. It is further submitted that on account of intervention of well-wishers applicants and opposite party no.2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise. Applicant no.1 and opposite party no. have filed a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce with mutual consent, which is pending consideration. As per terms and conditions mentioned in the said petition under Section 13-B, applicant has paid Rs. 7 lacs to opposite party no.2 by way of demand draft no.608040, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying the present application. It is, thus, 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.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also accepts that the parties have arrived at a compromise and copy of the same has also been enclosed along with the joint affidavit of both the parties which shall be filed today in the registry.

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at 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 1st March, 2021 as fresh before the appropriate Bench.

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure the presence of both the parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 8th February, 2021 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 through FAX a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit accompanying the present application within a week from today.

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 applicant in the aforesaid criminal case.

When the matter is listed next, name of Mr. Surjeet Singh Patel, Advocate shall be shown in the cause list as one of the learned counsel for the opposite party."

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 13.01.2021, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly has submitted the report dated 07.02.2021 stating therein that the parties appeared before the court concerned and the Court below, after ensuring the presence of both the parties, has verified the compromise by order order dated 08.02.2021, a certified copy of the order dated 08.02.2021 has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit in support of this application.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have entered into compromise 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 the impugned charge sheet dated 05.11.2019, under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Ijjat Nagar, District Bareilly in Case No. 9894 of 2019 (State vs. Kratarth Agrawal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0690 of 2019 as well as cognizance order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 12.3.2021

Monika