Allahabad High Court
Pavan Bhargav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7062 of 2020
Applicant :- Pavan Bhargav And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Prakash
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Madnesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 23.11.2018 and the cognizance order dated 13.03.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 766 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhansi.
On 20.02.2020, the following order was passed:-
"Sri Prem Prakash Yadav, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2. The same is taken on record.
The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 23.11.2018 and cognizance order dated 13.03.2019, passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No. 1, Jhansi, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 766 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhansi.
A compromise is said to have been filed before trial court.
Let verification order of same by trial court be filed along with certified copy of compromise, entered in between the parties, by way of supplementary affidavit, on record of this file.
List in the week commencing 27th April, 2020.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the above mentioned case."
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 20.02.2020, a compromise so arrived between he parties has been verified by order dated 29.02.2020 in the presence of parties alongwith their counsels, certified copy of the order dated 29.02.2020 has been passed on to the Court today, is kept on record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits 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, he 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 impugned charge sheet dated 23.11.2018 and the cognizance order dated 13.03.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 766 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhansi 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 :- 3.8.2022
Jitendra/-
