Allahabad High Court
Paras Nath Yadav And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 April, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33125 of 2009
Applicant :- Paras Nath Yadav And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kr. Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Pradeep Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Earlier on 22.12.2009, after issuing notices to the opposite party no.2, protection was granted to the applicants.
During pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, on 30.06.2022, the following order was passed:
"Learned counsel for the applicants submits that parties have entered into compromise out side the court.
Learned counsel for the applicants is granted two weeks time to file compromise before court below and Court below will send its report within one month thereafter.
List this case on 12th September, 2022.
Interim order, if any, granted earlier will continue till the next date of listing. "
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise verification report received from C.J.M., Varanasi has been placed on record as is evident from office report dated 09.09.2022. A letter of C.J.M., Varanasi, dated 19.07.2022 mentions about the verification of the compromise and compromise deed has also been placed on record. Certified copy of the order dated 19.07.2022 vide which the compromise has been verified, has been passed on to the Court today, is kept on record.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also pointed out that during course of proceeding, informant as well as applicant no.4 have expired and the same has been noted in the order passed by the trial Court by verifying the compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the aforesaid compromise being verified by the court concerned, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. for the State also affirms that the parties have entered into compromise, he has 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 entire proceedings of charge sheet dated 26.09.2008, Case No.21755 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.620 of 2008, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sigara, District-Varanasi, pending in the court of C.J.M., Varanasi, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2023/Rahul.
