Allahabad High Court
Prashant Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 September, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12134 of 2022
Applicant :- Prashant Yadav And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandan Upadhyay
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Chandan Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
On 05.07.2022, the following order was passed:
"Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
Heard Mr. Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Chandan Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash/stay the charge sheet dated 03.07.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 12.07.2019 and the proceedings of Case No.267 of 2019 (State Vs. Vinay Dwivedi and others), arising out of Case Crime No.261 of 2019, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Lanka, District-Varanasi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that parties have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute out of Court. An affidavit of opposite party no.2 has been placed as Annexure 4 to this application, mentioning therein that parties have entered into compromise and he does not want to proceed further with the criminal case against the applicants, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. It is, thus, contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also do not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
Put up this case on 17.08.2022 as fresh.
Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they shall make a fresh compromise deed along with an application before the court below within a week from today for verification of the aforesaid compromise. They further undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, and the court concerned, thereafter, shall 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 and file the same before this Court.
Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order within 24 hours.
Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order along with a fresh compromise application before the court concerned within a week from today.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the court concerned has verified the compromise in presence of the parties and their respective counsels vide order dated 28.07.2022. Certified copy of the said order has been placed as Annexure SA-2 of the supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicant 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 Case No.267 of 2019 (State Vs. Vinay Dwivedi and others), arising out of Case Crime No.261 of 2019, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Lanka, District-Varanasi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Varanasi are, hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.9.2022
Madhurima
