Allahabad High Court
Monu Kumar And 3 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. - 3911 of 2022
Applicant :- Monu Kumar And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
Heard Mr. Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. D.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
On 05.07.2022, the following order was passed:-
"Both the parties have been represented by their respective counsels. State is represented by learned A.G.A.
By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought for quashment of the proceedings of Case Crime No. 02 of 2012 under Sections 498-A/34, 323/34, 506/34 I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Mahila Thana, District Meerut and consequential conviction order dated 22.03.2018 as well as 10.04.2018 passed by Special C.J.M., Meerut in Criminal Case No. 4010732 of 2012 and Criminal Case No. 4010732A of 2012 as also the order dated 24.12.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut including proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2018 in terms of compromise dated 17.10.2018 arrived at between the parties.
Claim is that the conviction of the applicants was recorded under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act consequent upon that an appeal was preferred by the applicants and during the pendency of the said appeal, the parties have entered into some compromise. Copy of the compromise deed is annexed at page-73 of the accompanying affidavit but this compromise deed was not acted upon by the lower court in view of the fact that certain offences are non compoundable as such, the plea of compromise was rejected, consequently, the applicants have preferred the instant application before this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no. 2 is also present and he too adopted the view of learned counsel for the applicant and stated that the parties have entered into compromise.
The claim so raised is sustained. The present compromise deed is required to be verified physically by the lower court concerned.
In view of the above, it is directed that copy of the compromise deed as appearing at page-73 of the accompanying affidavit shall be moved before the lower court concerned and in case, any compromise deed is so presented then physical verification of the same shall be done and order shall be passed by the lower court concerned thereon on 25th July, 2022. A report of physical verification of the said compromise shall be obtained and produced by both the parties before this Court on the next date fixed.
List on 10th August, 2022 as unlisted.
Till then, though the proceedings of the lower court may go on but no final verdict shall be passed and no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, report from A.D.S.J., Court No.15, Meerut, is kept on record as is evident from office report dated 25.04.2023. A letter of A.D.S.J., Court No.15, Meerut, dated 22.08.2022 has been placed along with compromise deed mentioning therein that after physical verification, the compromise has been verified on 22.08.2022.
On page 20 of the supplementary affidavit, detail order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the concerned Court, has been placed which also mentions that the compromise has been verified after recording the statements of the parties.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of the aforesaid compromise being verified by the Court concerned, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also affirms that the parties have entered into compromise, they 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,
6. Pramod and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another: 2021 0 Supreme (All) 87,
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 Case Crime No. 02 of 2012 under Sections 498-A/34, 323/34, 506/34 I.P.C. and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Mahila Thana, District Meerut and consequential conviction order dated 22.03.2018 as well as 10.04.2018 passed by Special C.J.M., Meerut in Criminal Case No. 4010732 of 2012 and Criminal Case No. 4010732A of 2012 as also the order dated 24.12.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut including proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2018 in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2023
Rahul.
