Allahabad High Court
Lallu @ Ramdas And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5366 of 2023
Applicant :- Lallu @ Ramdas And 7 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Sri Akshay Raj Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Sri Akshay Raj Singh, 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 entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4220 of 2022 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jagdish and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0313-A of 1984, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai on the basis of the compromise.
On 20th December, 2017, the Court has passed following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1 and Sri Rajni Kant Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Ruchita Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4220 of 2022, State v. Jagdish and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 0313-A of 1984, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Jalaun, district Jalaun pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the alleged incident no one had received any injury. The first information report was lodged by father of the opposite party no. 2 who has died during the pendency of the proceedings. It is further submitted that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between son of the informant, who is opposite party no. 2, and the applicants. The opposite party no. 2 is also an eye witness of the alleged incident. The copy of the compromise deed dated 29.10.2022 has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sukhjinder Singh etc. v. State of Punjab etc., 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 556 : 2014(2) Crimes 266.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.
In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with an application for verification of compromise deed so filed as well as a certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not.
The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."
Pursuant to the above order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai vide order dated 07.01.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai dated 07.01.2023 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure No.5 and 3 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. 4220 of 2022 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jagdish and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0313-A of 1984, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.2.2023
Abhishek Singh
