Allahabad High Court
Rajeev @ Raju vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10065 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajeev @ Raju
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Surendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Narain Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
On 13.08.2021, the following order was passed:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet dated 31.03.2009 and cognizance order dated 06.10.2009 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 4200 of 2012 (State Vs. Rajeev @ Raju), arising out of Case Crime No. 492 of 2009, under Sections- 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Swar, District- Rampur, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. 1st, Rampur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the dispute.
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.
List after two months.
Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant. "
In compliance of the aforesaid order, dated 02.03.2022, the compromise placed before the court concerned has been verified on 06.01.2022. Certified copy of the compromise deed as well as order dated 06.01.2022 has been placed on record as annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 25.02.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also affirms that the parties have entered into a compromise and copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order dated 21.03.2022, they have 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; and
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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) 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 counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 4200 of 2012 (State Vs. Rajeev @ Raju), arising out of Case Crime No. 492 of 2009, under Sections- 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Swar, District- Rampur, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. 1st, Rampur in terms of the compromise, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 5.8.2022
Madhurima
