Allahabad High Court
Manish Chauhan And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4892 of 2023
Applicant :- Manish Chauhan And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mir Sayed,Shailendra Nigam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saqib Ahmad
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Sri Saqib Ahmad, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Mir Sayed, Mr. Shailendra Nigam, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Saqib Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet no. 03 of 2020, cognizance order dated 07.09.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 481 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Mainish Chauhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District- Bijnor, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bijnor.
On 3rd December, 2017, the Court has passed following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Saqib Ahmad, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 who has filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are husband and wife and they have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of a settlement deed which is on record. It is prayed that in view of the settlement deed by which the matter has been amicably settled between the husband and wife, learned trial court may be directed to verify the settlement deed.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has conceded the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the compromise submitting that the compromise has been entered between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 who are husband and wife; respondent no. 2 to 5 have not entered into any compromise with respondent no. 2, hence, the proceedings qua these petitioners i.e. petitioner no. 2 to 5 cannot be quashed on the basis of the said settlement deed.
On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record, the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 21.12.2022 along with said compromise as well as a fresh compromise entered between petitioner nos. 2 to 5 and respondent no. 2, who shall verify the compromise in presence of the parties within one week thereafter and keep a report of the verification on the record of the Court after providing its copies to the parties.
For a period of three months, the proceedings of criminal case No. 481/2020 "State of U.P. Vs. Manish Chauhan and others", case crime No. 101/2019, under Section 498A/323/504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnaur, shall be kept in abeyance.
In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
Liberty to the parties is granted to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of compromise and its verification."
Pursuant to the above order, the Judicial Magistrate/ F.T.C., Court No.2, Bijnor vide order dated 21.12.2022 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. In the order of the Judicial Magistrate/ F.T.C., Court No.2, Bijnor vide order dated 21.12.2022. Certified copies of the order of the Judicial Magistrate/ F.T.C., Court No.2, Bijnor vide order dated 21.12.2022 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure No.9 to this application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in 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,
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. 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 the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 481 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Mainish Chauhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Bijnor, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bijnor, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.2.2023
Abhishek Singh
