Allahabad High Court
Balveer And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 March, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4321 of 2016
Applicant :- Balveer And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad,Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary corrections in the prayer clause today itself.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused entire material available on record.
3. This application is of the year 2016. Office report dated 2nd March, 2023 indicates that notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served personally but nobody has put in appearance on his behalf even in the revised reading of the list.
4. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 02.01.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2 Jyotiba Phule Nagar (State vs Balveer & Ors) in Session Trial No. 223 of 2012, Under Sections 308, 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Station Rajabpur, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar (Amroha) pending in the court of Additional Session Judge, Court no. 2 Jyotiba Phule Nagar (Amroha), on the basis of compromise dated 23rd December, 2015, entered into between the applicants and opposite party no.2.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that malicious prosecution has been allegedly initiated by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants, as the dispute between the parties arose due to some misunderstanding.
6. He further submits that on account of intervention of well-wishers of the applicants and opposite party no.2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at compromise and opposite party no.2 does not want to continue the criminal proceedings initiated by him against the applicants, a copy of the compromise deed has been enclosed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit accompanying the present application. On the basis of aforesaid compromise, both the parties have made an application before the court below for quashing of the aforesaid criminal case along with a joint affidavit. The court below vide order dated 2nd January, 2016 has refused to quash the aforesaid criminal proceedings after recording a finding that since prima facie serious offences i.e. non-compoundable offences are made out against the applicants under Sections 308 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., which do not come within Section 320 Cr.P.C., the Court has no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings on the basis of the compromise dated 23rd December, 2015.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is no doubt true that the court below has no jurisdiction to quash the aforesaid criminal proceedings under Sections 308 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., on the basis of compromise but this Court has every power to quash the same on the basis of the aforesaid compromise keeping in mind that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. He further states that in series of 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.
8. 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,
9. 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 (Supra). in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
10. 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
11. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 02.01.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2 Jyotiba Phule Nagar (State vs Balveer & Ors) in Session Trial No. 223 of 2012, Under Sections 308, 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Station Rajabpur, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar (Amroha) pending in the court of Additional Session Judge, Court no. 2 Jyotiba Phule Nagar (Amroha) is also quashed.
12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.3.2023
Gaurav
