Allahabad High Court
Rajneesh @ Vikky And 2 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. - 1339 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajneesh @ Vikky And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ruby Choudhary,Ramesh Chandra Agrahari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 536 of 2013 (Smt. Jyoti Vs. Rajneesh alias Vikky and others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr including the summoning order dated 28.06.2013.
Earlier, on 04.02.2022, the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 536 of 2013 (Smt. Jyoti Vs. Rajneesh alias Vikky and others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr including the summoning order dated 28.06.2013.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them on 21.10.2020 which has been reduced in writing.
Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State does not dispute the correctness of the dispute.
Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and in pursuance of compromise between the parties applicants shall provide a draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- to O.P. No. 2 before the court concerned and they be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
List after two months.
Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants."
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 04.02.2022, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 25.04.2023. A letter of the A.C.J.M., Khurja, Bulandshahar dated 20.04.2022 has been placed alongwith order dated 18.04.2022 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-
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 entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 536 of 2013 (Smt. Jyoti Vs. Rajneesh alias Vikky and others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr is hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 26.4.2023
Jitendra/-
