Allahabad High Court
Jayad Ali @ Jahid Ali And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5354 of 2022
Applicant :- Jayad Ali @ Jahid Ali And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Srivastava
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
The present petition has been preferred by the applicants for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet no. 38 of 2007 dated 18.09.2007 as well as charge-sheet no. 38A of 2008 dated 12.02.2008 under Section 498A & 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar pertaining to case crime no. 22 of 2007 as well as for quashing of the orders dated 29.10.2007 & 20.02.2008 by which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar has taken cognizance against the applicants and order dated 17.09.2021 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate-10, Kanpur Nagar and further to quash the entire proceedings of case no. 2925 of 2011 arising out of case crime no. 22 of 2007, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-10, Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated as submitted earlier before this Court that the matter pertains to the matrimonial dispute between the parties and the husband and wife have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise on 11.04.2022.
On the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, this Court vide its order dated 10.03.2022 has referred the matter to the court below for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and directed the learned counsel for the applicants to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record the certified copy of the verified compromise deed dated 11.04.2022.
In compliance of the earlier order of this Court, learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit dated 26.04.2022 enclosing therein the certified copy of the order dated 12.04.2022, on which date the compromise has been verified by the trial court. In the order dated 12.04.2022, it has been mentioned that the signatories were present and they had admitted that they have entered into compromise voluntarily. Their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court and the compromise has been verified. Copy of the compromise along with the order dated 12.04.2022 has been enclosed as SA- 1 & 2 respectively to the supplementary affidavit).
On the other hand, learned AGA and Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have submitted that the compromise has been entered into between the parties without there being any coercion or pressure and the respondent no. 2 has entered into compromise on her own sweet will. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the case anymore pending before the trial court against the applicants as such, the impugned charge-sheet no. 38 of 2007 dated 18.09.2007 as well as charge-sheet no. 38A of 2008 dated 12.02.2008 under Section 498A & 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar pertaining to case crime no. 22 of 2007 as well as the orders dated 29.10.2007 & 20.02.2008 by which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar has taken cognizance against the applicants and order dated 17.09.2021 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate-10, Kanpur Nagar including the entire proceedings of case no. 2925 of 2011 arising out of case crime no. 22 of 2007, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-10, Kanpur Nagar may be quashed.
It is further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. and Another [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Manoj Sharma vs. State and Ors. [(2008) 16 SCC 1], Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that a compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record as well the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court (as discussed above), it is found that the parties have amicably entered into a compromise and the respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue any further the criminal case pending against the applicants before the court below. In the present case, the crime is against the individual and not against the society; the accused has no criminal antecedents or criminal history and the present criminal proceedings are arising out of a matrimonial dispute.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the compromise dated 26.07.2021 as well as the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, no purpose would be served to keep the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the impugned charge-sheet no. 38 of 2007 dated 18.09.2007 as well as charge-sheet no. 38A of 2008 dated 12.02.2008 under Section 498A & 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar pertaining to case crime no. 22 of 2007 as well as the orders dated 29.10.2007 & 20.02.2008 by which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar has taken cognizance against the applicants and order dated 17.09.2021 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate-10, Kanpur Nagar including the entire proceedings of case no. 2925 of 2011 arising out of case crime no. 22 of 2007, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate-10, Kanpur Nagar are hereby quashed.
The petition is hereby allowed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2022
Nitesh
