Allahabad High Court
Indrajeet And 2 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 7 April, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40228 of 2022
Applicant :- Indrajeet And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in the Court today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr.Gaurang Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as also perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge-sheet dated 30th November, 2020, cognizance taking/summoning order dated 25th February, 2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 88 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Indrajeet & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 615 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 324 and 308 I.P.C., Police Station-Bahedi, District-Bareilly pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties, who are known to each other very well, is purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
In the above regard, a compromise has been entered into between the parties. Thereafter the applicants have approached this Court by means of the present application for quashing the aforesaid case in terms of compromise entered into between the parties. A Coordinate Bench of this Court passed order on 6th December, 2022 directing the parties to appear before the court below along with copy of the compromise for its verification and the court below inturn was directed to verify the same in the presence of both the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 6th December, 2022, the court below has verified the said compromise vide order dated 16th January, 2023, copies of the verification order and the settlement agreement arrived at between the parties have been enclosed as S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise and the same has also been verified by the court below, opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in 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,
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 proceedings of Criminal Case No. 88 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Indrajeet & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 615 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 324 and 308 I.P.C., Police Station-Bahedi, District-Bareilly pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)
Order Date :- 7.4.2023
Sushil/-
