Allahabad High Court
Man Khan vs State Of U.P.And Another on 10 April, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15834 of 2022
Applicant :- Man Khan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and perused the materials on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 24.01.2013 and the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 71 of 2014 (Old No. 2092 of 2012), Noor Mohammad Vs. Man Khan and Others, under Sections 387, 504, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Jhansi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st, Jhansi.
On 27.06.2022, the Court has passed following order:
"Heard Sri Awadhesh Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the applicants who four in number for quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No.71 of 2014 (Old No.2092 of 2012) u/s 387, 504, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Jhansi, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-1st, Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to argue on the strength of the pleadings so set forth in the present application while contending that a criminal complaint was lodged under Section 387, 504, 506, 34 IPC before P.S. Prem Nagar, District Jhansi wherein allegation had been sought to be levelled to the extent that the opposite party no.2 Noor Ahmed (Mohammed) son Amir got married with one Smt. Madina on 25.4.2010 and thereafter with the wedlock a daughter was born. However, on account of her ailing health, she also succumbed on 19.5.2012. He has further argued that in between the complainant fraction and the accused who are applicants before this Court compromise took place emanating from the fact that offences were shown to be commissioned by the applicants herein.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further drawn the attention to the court towards annexure-3 at page 22 of the application so as to further contend that a compromise has been entered into between one Noor Ahmed (Mohammed), who happens to be the opposite party no.2 complainant and the applicants on affidavit dated 9.5.2022 whereby in paragraph nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the settlement so sought to be executed between the parties before this Court as transcribed in the application, now the complainant fraction does not want to proceed with the same in the backdrop of the fact that already settlement has been executed.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further sought to rely upon the judgment in the case of Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (1) SCC Cr. 160 as well as the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Gopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29.9.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicants has further drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraph nos. 12, 13, 14, & 15 so as to further contend that the offences do not fall within the definition of heinous crime and thus this Court under application purported to be under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can compound the same and quiet the proceedings.
Learned AGA on the other hand has argued that as per annexure-3 which happens to be at page 22 of the paper book according to him compromise has been entered into between the parties and at the first instance the matter is to be treated in such a manner so as to direct the court below to verify the said compromise as per the legal provisions attracted therein.
Accordingly the applicants are directed to file an appropriate application before the Judicial Magistrate-1st, Jhansi in Criminal Complaint Case No.71 of 2014 (Old No.2092 of 2012) u/s 387, 504, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Jhansi pending before it along with compromise affidavit within 10 days from today. On the receipt of the application containing the compromise affidavit the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st, Jhansi shall undertake proceedings for verification of the same while informing the concerned parties to remain present before it for verification within a period of one month. The report regarding the fate of the compromise shall be furnished within two months.
Include the matter in the list of fresh cases on 13th September, 2022.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings emanating in Criminal Complaint Case No.71 of 2014 (Old No.2092 of 2012) u/s 387, 504, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Jhansi, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-1st, Jhansi shall remain stayed.
Needless to point out in case of any violation of any condition so mentioned herein the interim protection so accorded shall stand vacated without being reference to the bar."
Pursuant to the above order, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st, Jhansi vide order dated 24.11.2022 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st, Jhansi dated 24.11.2022 and the compromise have been placed along with the order sheet.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the concerned Magistrate, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be 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 case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 71 of 2014 (Old No. 2092 of 2012), Noor Mohammad Vs. Man Khan and Others, under Sections 387, 504, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Jhansi, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st, Jhansi are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.4.2023
SK Srivastava
