Allahabad High Court
Nikhil Kumar Nandi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2954 of 2023
Applicant :- Nikhil Kumar Nandi And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning/ cognizance order dated 03.01.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 37 of 2022 (State Vs. Nikhil Kumar Nandi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 72 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Cantt. District Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1, Bareilly on the basis of the compromise.
On 17.02.2023 a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed following orders in the matter:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A.
Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are husband and wife. The FIR was got registered under section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. After holding investigation, the police has submitted the charge sheet. Thereafter better sense has been prevailed between the parties and both the parties have come to terms and on 21.11.2022 have jotted down the compromise annexed as Annexure-4 to the application. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 concedes that there is compromise between the parties.
Under the circumstances, both the parties are required to remain present before the court concerned with the alleged compromise dated 21.11.2022 within a period of 15 days. The court concerned shall summon its covenants and signatories before him and only after verification of the covenants and signatories of the compromise deed, would pass a suitable order within the aforesaid period.
Put up this matter as fresh on 20.03.2023.
On that date, learned counsel for the applicants is required to furnish the order passed by the court concerned by means of supplementary affidavit.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in pursuance of Case no.37 of 2022 arising out of case crime no.72 of 2021 under sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, police station-Cantt., District-Bareilly pending before Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly and summoning order dated 03.01.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly."
Pursuant to the above order, the Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Bareilly vide order dated 27.03.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of theJudicial Magistrate-Ist, Bareilly dated 27.03.2023 and the compromise have been brought on record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he 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 complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of summoning/ cognizance order dated 03.01.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 37 of 2022 (State Vs. Nikhil Kumar Nandi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 72 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Cantt. District Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.4.2023
Abhishek Singh
