Allahabad High Court
Meraj And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 February, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1505 of 2023
Applicant :- Meraj And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd.Asif Siddiqui,Mohd Asif Siddiqui
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Sri Mohd. Asif Siddiqui, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 3 along with the Vakalatnama, Sri Anirudh Kumar Siingh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed for quashing the chargesheet No. 93 of 2008 dated 11.04.2008 as well as summoning order dated 12.06.2008 in case crime No. 1057 of 2007 case no. 3706 of 2008 under section 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC police station Gola Gokrannath District Lakhimpur Kheri, State Vs. Meraj and others pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 7, Lakhimpur Kheri.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he is innocent and falsely been implicated. He next added that due to misunderstanding the instant FIR has been lodged and thereafter the parties have settled their dispute and settlement deed has been executed, i.e., on 18.01.2023.
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:-
"9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant."
He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered in Sachin Jain v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another, Criminal Appeal No.510 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) NO.3009 of 2022.
Referring the aforesaid judgments, he submits that since the parties have settled the dispute and they have got married and they are living as husband and wife and there is no dispute further in between the parties. He next added that this Court vide order dated 09.01.2023 passed in Application under Section 482 No. 64 of 2023, referred the matter to the Court below, wherein the compromise deed has been verified vide order dated 23.01.2023. He submits that further criminal proceedings against the present applicant, in such a situation, would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicant, as such, the same may be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has also supported the version of learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have entered into compromise in the light of ratio of judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari (supra) and thus the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped.
On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.
Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 18.01.2023 and said compromise has been verified on 23.01.2023 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal case relating to Case crime No. 1057 of 2007.
In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 18.01.2023 and no grievance remains to be agitated and as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
Accordingly, criminal proceedings the chargesheet No. 93 of 2008 dated 11.04.2008 as well as summoning order dated 12.06.2008 in case crime No. 1057 of 2007 case no. 3706 of 2008 under section 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC police station Gola Gokrannath District Lakhimpur Kheri, State Vs. Meraj and others pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 7, Lakhimpur Kheri are hereby quashed.
The compromise shall be part of this order.
The application is allowed accordingly.
Consigned to record.
Order Date :- 27.2.2023
Mayank
