Allahabad High Court
Hasan Ali And 3 Others vs State Of U.P.And 2 Others on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5408 of 2023
Applicant :- Hasan Ali And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as well as perused the materials on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceeding of Session Trial No. 281 of 2016 (State Vs. Hasan Ali and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2013, under Sections 308, 324, 325, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bakewar, District Fatehpur, pending in the Court of learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Fatehpur.
On 15.11.2022, the Court has passed following order:
"Heard Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court by way of entering into compromise. They have filed an application before the learned court below in ST No. 281/2016, in case crime No. 185/2013, under Section 308/324/325/323/452/504/506 I.P.C. for compounding the matter on the basis of the compromise which has been rejected by the learned trial court. The rejection order dated 28.07.2022 is on record.
It is further submitted that since the dispute has been amicably settled outside the Court by the parties, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab" reported in "(2012) 10 SCC 303", Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another" reported in "(2014) 6 SCC 466", "Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641" Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed after verification of the compromise from the learned trial court.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3 has no objection, if the compromise is first verified by the trial court.
On due consideration to the argument advanced, perusal of the record as well as considering the aforesaid judgments cited above, even in non-compoundable cases the prosecution can be quashed by the High Court on the basis of compromise entered between the parties and accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 06.12.2022 along with the copy of original compromise deed, 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 two month, the proceedings of ST No. 281/2016 "State Vs. Hasan Ali and others", in case crime No. 185/2013, under Section 308/324/325/323/452/504/506 I.P.C., P.S. Bakewar, District Fatehpur, 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 learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 03, Fatehpur vide order dated 06.12.2022 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 03, Fatehpur dated 06.12.2022 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure no. 7.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the concerned Magistrate, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party nos. 2 and 3, 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 wherein 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 Session Trial No. 281 of 2016 (State Vs. Hasan Ali and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2013, under Sections 308, 324, 325, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bakewar, District Fatehpur, pending in the Court of learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Fatehpur are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.2.2023
SK Srivastava
