Allahabad High Court
Sarafuddin And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 7 December, 2023
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:80437
Court No. - 11
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11438 of 2023
Applicant :- Sarafuddin And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Farooq Ayoob
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard.
Considering the facts indicated in the application [C.M. Application No. IA/3/23 (Application for modification)] as also the fact that in terms of order dated 11.07.2023 passed by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6504 of 2023, the trial court vide order dated 05.08.2023 verified the compromise, whereby, the parties settled the dispute amicably outside the Court, this Court finds that the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by this Court earlier in the matter has wrongly been transcribed. Accordingly, the order dated 22.11.2023 shall now be read, applied and complied in following manner:-
"Shri Pooja Tiwari, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quashed the summoning order dated 02.01.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Barabanki Court no. 25 in Case No. 103/2020, by means of which the petitioner no. 1 has been summoned to face the trail crime no.-295/2019, U/S-498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 34 D.P. Act & Muslim Woman Act, and petitioner no. 2 & 3 have been summoned U/S- 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act P.S.-Dewa, District-Barabanki and as well as charge sheet no. 359/2019 and dated 22.10.2019, contained as Annexure No. 2 & 3 this petition."
It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.No. 6504 of 2023 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 11.07.2023 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.
It appears from the order dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure No. 6) that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.
For the relief(s) sought, on the basis of compromise, the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409.
Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of trial Court dated 05.08.2023 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, and the nature of dispute/crime, which is essentially matrimonial in nature, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, entire proceedings, in issue, are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.
Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in above terms.
Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concerned Court forthwith."
Order Date :- 7.12.2023
Arun/-
