Allahabad High Court
Pinki Yadav And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4359 of 2023
Applicant :- Pinki Yadav And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 31.01.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1958 of 2018 (Ahibaran Vs. Asharam Yadav and others), under Sections 385, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar on the basis of the compromise.
On 6.8.2022 a Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed following order:
"Heard Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 31.01.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1958 of 2018 (Ahibaran vs. Asharam Yadav and Others), under Sections 385, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Jahangirbad, District-Bulandshahar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant had lodged a case against opposite party no.2 and family members for which the parties have amicably settled the dispute before the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital. The terms and conditions of the settlement has been placed at page 45 as Annexure No.4 to this application. One of the conditions mentioned therein that the parties will withdraw all the cases against each other and the details of the present case are also mentioned therein. He further submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between, 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 the process of law.
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 a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file a proper compromise deed. 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 court below vide order dated 21.11.2022 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order 21.11.2022 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure No.10 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.
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 summoning order dated 31.01.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1958 of 2018 (Ahibaran Vs. Asharam Yadav and others), under Sections 385, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 16.2.2023
Abhishek Singh
