Allahabad High Court
Mayank Gupta And 4 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20129 of 2022
Applicant :- Mayank Gupta And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Short counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record.
Office is directed to registered the same.
Heard Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Madnesh Prasad Sinch, learned counsel for the State, and Mr. Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet no.01 of 2020 dated 26.1.2020 and cognizance order dated 24.02.2020 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.404 of 2020 (State Vs. Mayank and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0371 of 2018, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Nawabganj District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicants have approached before this Court by means of Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C No.7734 of 2021 (Mayank Gupta and 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and another), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 26.1.2020 and cognizance order dated 24.02.2020 of the Criminal Case No.404 of 2020 (State Vs. Mayank and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0371 of 2018, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bareilly Nagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
The contentions raised by the applicants' counsel is that there is a dispute in between the parties. There are chances of amicable settlement between the parties. Applicants' counsel urged that this case may be referred for mediation so that the parties may have a chance to settle their dispute on their own terms through mediation.
In such circumstances, it is directed that both the parties shall appear before the court below and file an application for settling the dispute through mediation. In case such an application is filed before the court below for settling the dispute through mediation, the court concerned shall pass an appropriate order within a week from the date of filing such an application. The mediation centre will decide the same within a period of four months.
For a period of five months, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in the above mentioned case.
It is further directed that in case mediation process between the parties fails, the court below shall be free to proceed further with the matter against the applicants and in case mediation succeeds, the applicants shall be free to approach this Court.
With the above observation, this application is disposed of."
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 15.02.2022, the applicants again approached this Court by filing of this application for quashing of the charge sheet as well as the entire criminal proceedings as the mediation between the parties has been successfully completed.
Learned counsel for the applicants further 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, they have 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 charge sheet no.01 of 2020 dated 26.1.2020 and cognizance order dated 24.02.2020 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.404 of 2020 (State Vs. Mayank and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0371 of 2018, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly 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 :- 13.7.2022
Jitendra/-
