Dr. Ajay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 14549 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 85
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7700 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Dr. Ajay Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Jeet Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Ojha
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Amar Jeet Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sanjay Ojha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Rakesh Soni, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 14.02.2022 and the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Meerut as well as entire criminal proceedings of the Sessions Case No. 271 of 2022 (State versus Dr. Ajay Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(da) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Pallavpuram, District-Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Meerut, on the basis of compromise.

On 04.07.2022, the following order was passed:-

"Shri Sanjay Ojha, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 along with short counter affidavit in Court today, the same is taken on record.

Heard Sri Amar Jeet Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sanjay Ojha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Ravikant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

By way of the present application the applicant has made a prayer to quash the order dated 14.02.2022 and the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Meerut as well as entire criminal proceedings of the Sessions Case No. 271 of 2022 (State versus Dr. Ajay Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(da) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Pallavpuram, District-Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Meerut.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR against the applicant was lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 03.08.2021 and in that case chargesheet against the applicant was submitted on 03.02.2022 and after taking cognizance summons were issued against the applicant and after that on 01.03.2022, opposite party no. 2 and applicant have entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 moved an application before the trial court with the prayer that he does not want to proceed with the matter on merit as matter has already been settled between them. Therefore, proceedings pending against the applicant may be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 01.03.2022.

Learned counsel for the opposite party also conceded the fact that on 01.03.2022, both the parties have entered into a compromise and opposite party no. 2 himself does not want to proceed further on merit and he is having no objection if on the basis of the compromise dated 01.03.2022 proceedings pending against the applicant is quashed.

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer, but could not dispute the fact that on 01.03.2022 both the parties have entered into compromise and compromise dated 01.03.2022 have already been filed before the court concerned. He further submitted that trial court should be directed to verify the compromise dated 01.03.2022.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, on 01.03.2022 both the parties have entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 himself filed the compromise before the trial court with the prayer that on the basis of the compromise dated 01.03.2022, the proceedings pending against the applicant should be quashed. As counsel for both the parties consented that applicant and opposite party no. 2 are ready to appear before the court concerned within two weeks from today, therefore it is directed that applicant and opposite party no. 2 shall appear before the court concerned on 18.07.2022 before the trial court and shall file an application along with certified copy of this order for verification of the compromise dated 01.03.2022.

If any such application is moved then the trial court is directed to verify the compromise dated 01.03.2022 in accordance with law and submit its report by 22.08.2022.

List this case on 24.08.20222.

Office is also directed to submit a report in respect of the verification report submitted by the trial court on the next date.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid Sessions Case No. 271 of 2022 (State versus Dr. Ajay Kumar) under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(da) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Pallavpuram, District-Meerut. "

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the report dated 18.7.2022 regarding verification of compromise received from Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Meerut is placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 29.09.2022. As per report dated 18.7.2022, the compromise between the parties has been verified in presence of the parties as well as their respective counsels.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the aforesaid compromise being verified by the court concerned, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

Learned A.G.A. for the State also affirms that the parties have entered into compromise, he has no objection, if the proceedings of 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, proceeding of cognizance order dated 14.02.2022 and the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Meerut as well as entire criminal proceedings of the Sessions Case No. 271 of 2022 (State versus Dr. Ajay Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(da) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Pallavpuram, District-Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Meerut, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 20.10.2022

Rahul.