Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Rashid And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38558 of 2022
Applicant :- Mohammad Rashid And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ehtesham Afsar Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
Heard Mr. Chandra Prakash Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sushil Kumar 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 30.11.2022, the following order was passed:-
"Heard Sri E. A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicants to quash the proceedings of Case No. 2590 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 494 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Bareilly on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and in this regard a compromise has also been executed between them. Therefore, the compromise executed between the parties may be verified by the court below.
He next submitted that applicants are ready to appear before the court concerned for verification of the compromise executed between them on the date fixed by this Court.
Learned AGA is having no objection if any such direction is given to the court below for verification of compromise executed between the parties.
As both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise has also been executed between them, therefore, it is directed that both the parties shall appear before the court concerned within two weeks and shall file an application along with the certified copy of this order for verification of compromise executed between them.
If any such application is moved, then the court below shall verify the compromise alleged to have been executed between the parties, in accordance with law, and shall transmit verification report to this Court.
List this case on 13.01.2023.
Office is directed to submit a report on the next date in respect of verification report, if any, forwarded by the court below.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that applicants shall inform to opposite party no.2 about the order passed today by this Court."
Subsequently, on 21.12.2022, the following order was passed on the correction application.
"In Re:-Civil Misc. Correction Application No. 2 of 2022.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant to correct the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to inadvertence in prayer clause of the instant application 'Court No. 2', has wrongly been mentioned as 'Court No. 5' and due to that reason in the second paragraph of the order dated 30.11.2022 in place of Court No. 2, it has been transcribed as 'Court No. 5', therefore, he may be permitted to correct the prayer clause of the instant application and the order dated 30.11.2022 may also be corrected, accordingly.
In view of the above, the instant correction application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary corrections in the prayer clause of the instant application in the Office of this Court within a week.
The order dated 30.11.2022 stands corrected as follows:-
In sixth line of second paragraph of the order dated 30.11.2022, 'Court No. 5' be read as 'Court No. 2.
As vide order dated 30.11.2022, two weeks' time was given to the applicant to appear before the court concerned for verification of compromise which has already been expired, therefore, in view of the above, 'three weeks further time' is granted from today.
The order passed today shall be part of the order dated 30.11.2022."
In compliance of the aforesaid orders, compromise has been verified by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.2, Bareilly by order dated 17.02.2023 in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels. Certified copy of the same has been placed on page 12 of the supplementary affidavit filed today.
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,
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 No.2590 of 2018, (State Vs. Mohammad Rashid and Others), arising out of case crime no.221 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 494 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kila, District-Bareilly, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 28.4.2023
Rahul.
