Allahabad High Court
Ram Sanehi Mishra (In Charge Sheet Ram ... 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:80188
Court No. - 11
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11900 of 2023
Applicant :- Ram Sanehi Mishra (In Charge Sheet Ram Sanehi)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.
The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-
"WHEREFORE it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quashed/set aside proceedings of criminal case no.3100040/2015 arising out of case crime no. 65/2015 under section 307 IPC P.S. Biswan District Sitapur, in pursuance of charge sheet dated 24.04.2015, order of cognizance and summoning dated 04.02.2018 pending in the court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge Junior Division/ Judicial Magistrate Sitapur state versus Ram Saheni on the basis of compromise dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure no.2) entered into between petitioner who is accused and opposite party no.2 who is first informant of the case in the ends of justice.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the proceedings of criminal case no. 3100040/2015 arising out of case crime no. 65/2015 under section 307 IPC P.S. Biswan District Sitapur, in pursuance of charge sheet dated 24.04.2015, order of cognizance and summoning dated 04.02.2018 pending in the court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge Junior Division/ Judicial Magistrate Sitapur state versus Ram Saheni in the ends of justice during pendency of this petition."
It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 19.10.2023 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 10441 of 2023, has referred the matter to the court below for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.
It is further stated that in compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 19.10.2023, the court concerned Sitapur, has verified the compromise on 17.11.2023, as appears from the Annexure No. 3, wherein it has been mentioned 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.
With regard to the prayer sought including quashing of criminal proceedings 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 Settlement Agreement/compromise dated 05.10.2023 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the same is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax immediately for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 7.12.2023
Jyoti/-
