Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Kumar Jatav And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9798 of 2020
Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Jatav And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Atul Kumar Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
On 06.03.2020, the following order was passed:
"Sri P.K. Shukla, Advocate has filed vakalatnama alongwith affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 3.9.2019 as well as entire proceedings of criminal Case No. 1561/2019 (1561/IX/2019, State Vs. Mahendra and others, under section 147, 148, 149, 452, 325, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. arising out of case crime No. 0819 of 2018, P.S. Kotwali Karvi District Chitrakoot, pending in the court of C.J.M., Chitrakoot.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that with the intervention of respected persons of the society, parties have entered into a compromise and a settlement deed dated 7.2.2020 has been drawn copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 9 to this application. On the basis of the said compromise deed, it has been prayed before this Court that the proceedings be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also filed an affidavit and in para 6 of the affidavit, it has been stated that compromise has been arrived at between the parties in view of the settlement made between the parties, entire proceedings be quashed.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court concerned before whom the proceedings are pending after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
In view of the above, list this case on 29.4.2020 before the appropriate Bench.
In the meantime, the court below will proceed to fix a date for securing the presence of the parties to the proceedings before it and proceed thereafter to ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof.
Till the next date of listing, if within two weeks from today a certified copy of this order is produced before the court below with an application to verify a compromise already placed on record, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants till verification of the compromise in accordance with the observations made herein above."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise has been verified vide order dated 30.06.2020 in presence of the parties and their respective counsels. Certified copy of the said order has been annexed at page 17 of the supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants. He has filed all the documents relating to compromise along with the supplementary affidavit.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicants submits that continuation of proceedings in respect of the parties will be a futile exercise and sheer wastage of time of the Court and would also amount to abuse of process of law as the opposite party has entered into compromise, hence, entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also affirm that the parties have entered into compromise, they have 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, the proceedings of criminal Case No. 1561/2019 (1561/IX/2019, State Vs. Mahendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0819 of 2018 under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 325, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot pending in the court of C.J.M., Chitrakoot are, hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
Madhurima
