Allahabad High Court
Raja Martin And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 December, 2023
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:241881
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46777 of 2023
Applicant :- Raja Martin And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to allow this application and exempt to the applicant for filing the certified copy of charge sheet dated 21.08.2010 and cognizance order dated 04.11.2010 passed by CJM, Rampur in Sessions Trial No.314 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No.905 of 2010, under Sections-147, 308, 149, 323, 149, 504, 506, 456 I.P.C., Police Station-Bilaspur, District-Rampur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties entered into compromise and an Application U/s 482 No.39830 of 2023 was filed before this Court to quash the proceedings against the applicants in view of the compromise. In terms of compromise dated 26.09.2023 entered between the parties, this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.10.2023 referred the matter before trial court for verification of the parties and compromise deed, thereafter, by order dated 30.11.2023, in pursuance of this Hon'ble Court order dated 30.10.2023, trial court verified the parties and verified contents of compromise deed. He further submitted that parties have compromised the matter and verified by the trial court and injuries received by injured are simple in nature and supplementary report by which X-ray was done disclosed that X-ray of the skull showing result as NAD and injuries are simple in nature. Moreover, informant/opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case against the applicants. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 Law Suit (SC) 580. He further submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed the proceedings in aforesaid judgment in which parties entered into the compromise after completion of trial and conviction order and Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the conviction order on terms of compromise. He further submitted that as parties have amicably settled the dispute and they have been verified by the trial court, as such, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the matter pending.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said compromise and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, entire proceedings against the applicants be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
7. Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
10. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 21.08.2010 and cognizance order dated 04.11.2010 passed by CJM, Rampur in Sessions Trial No.314 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No.905 of 2010, under Sections-147, 308, 149, 323, 149, 504, 506, 456 I.P.C., Police Station-Bilaspur, District-Rampur, is hereby quashed.
11. This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2023
Nitin Verma
