Allahabad High Court
Deepak Bhadana And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13411 of 2017
Applicant :- Deepak Bhadana And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd.Nasim
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Mohd. Nasim, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Rakesh Soni, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No.01/2016, dated 09.10.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 635 of 2017 (State vs. Deepak Bhadana and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 269 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C., and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha.
On 02.05.2017, the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Mohammad Nasir learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 by filing his power today is taken on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 09.10.2016 registered as Case No. 635 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 269 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C., and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the private dispute between the applicants and the opposite party no.2 has been amicably settled between the parties, copy of which compromise is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is thus contended that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has stated that the private dispute between the parties has been settled and that the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the matter.
Let a compromise be filed by the applicant before the concerned Court to verify the same after issuing notice to the parties which exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before it, under intimation of this Court.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes to serve a certified copy of the order passed by this Court before the concerned Court below within a period of one month from today."
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 02.05.2017, compromise verification report has been placed on record alongwith compromise deed as well as the order dated 18.07.2022, as is evident from the office report dated 18.07.2022. As per the order dated 18.07.2022, the compromise, so filed, has been verified in the presence of parties alongwith their respective counsels.
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. does 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 charge sheet No.01/2016, dated 09.10.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 635 of 2017 (State vs. Deepak Bhadana and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 269 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C., and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha 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 :- 19.10.2022
Jitendra/-
