Allahabad High Court
Pappoo And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 April, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21890 of 2019
Applicant :- Pappoo And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jaysingh Yadav
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 order dated 26.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (U.P.D.A.A.) Act, Lalitpur as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 103 of 2017 (Smt. Sakhi Vs. Pappoo and others), S.S.T. No. 30 of 2019, under Section 395/397 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, pending in the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (U.P.D.A.A.) Act, Lalitpur.
On 20.03.2023, the Court has passed following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (U.P.D.A.A.) Act, Lalitpur as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 103 of 2017 (Smt. Sakhi Vs. Pappoo and others), S.S.T. No. 30 of 2019, under Section 395/397 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, pending in the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (U.P.D.A.A.) Act, Lalitpur on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that both the parties are known to each other very well and the dispute between them is due to misunderstanding. He further submits that on account of intervention of well-wishers of the applicants and opposite party no. 2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise. On the basis of said compromise, an affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 2 before the Court below that she does not want to press the criminal proceedings initiated by her against the applicants. 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 counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also does 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 20.04.2023 before the appropriate Bench.
Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they shall make a fresh compromise 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, on 05.04.2023 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 steps would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
Pursuant to the above order, the Learned Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (U.P.D.A.A.) Act, Lalitpur vide order dated 18.01.2020 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the Learned Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (U.P.D.A.A.) Act, Lalitpur vide order dated 18.01.2020 and the compromise have been brought on record as SCA-1 of the supplementary counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicants 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.
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 case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (U.P.D.A.A.) Act, Lalitpur as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 103 of 2017 (Smt. Sakhi Vs. Pappoo and others), S.S.T. No. 30 of 2019, under Section 395/397 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, pending in the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (U.P.D.A.A.) Act, Lalitpur are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.4.2023
Anurag/-
