Allahabad High Court
Satya Deo Prasad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 March, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34559 of 2022
Applicant :- Satya Deo Prasad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Goswami
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. S.P. Goswami, holding brief of Mr. Abhishek Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
On 07.02.2023, the following order was passed:-
"Heard Mr. Abhishek Goswami, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2056 of 2012 (Km. BAbita Vs. Constable Mohd. Ahad Khan @ Abdul Ahad Khan and another) under sections 354 IPC and 3(1) X SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
Record shows that during pendency of aforesaid case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of above, complainant/opposite party-2 approached this Court by means of Application U/S No. 34477 of 2017 (Km. Babita Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) for quashing of complaint. However, aforesaid application was dismissed with liberty to approach the Court below. For ready reference order dated 13.10.2017, passed in aforesaid application is reproduced herein under:
"Learned counsel for applicant prays for permission to withdraw this application subject to the liberty to prosecute the application amde before the concerned authority to withdraw his complaint.
The application is dismissed with liberty as prayed."
Subsequent to above order dated 13.10.2017, complainant opposite party-2 filed an application dated 22.5.2017, praying therein that she does not wish to proceed with the prosecution of accused applicant any further and therefore, complaint itself be dismissed as withdrawn. However, no order was passed by Court below on aforesaid application. In the meantime, applicant absconded from the proceedings. Accordingly, non bailable warrant was issued against applicant.
It is thus urged by learned counsel for applicant that proceedings of aforesaid case may be quashed in lieu of the compromise between the parties.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
Put up this case on 13.3.2023 as fresh.
Learned counsel for the applicant undertake to ensure the presence of the parties before court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 28.2.2023 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and sent to this Court by the next date.
Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.
Since, prima facie the parties have entered into a compromise, as an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in aforementioned case crime number. "
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise between the parties has been verified by the Court below, vide order dated 28.02.2023, in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels. Certified copy of the aforesaid verification order along with certified copy of the application and certified copy of the affidavit have been placed before the Court, which are kept on record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the aforesaid compromise being verified by the court concerned, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. for the State also affirms that the parties have entered into compromise, he has no objection if the proceedings of 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; and
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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) 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 counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2056 of 2012 (Km. Babita Vs. Constable Mohd. Ahad Khan @ Abdul Ahad Khan and another), arising out of Case Crime No.160 of 2008, under sections 354 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) X SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sant Kabir Nagar, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.3.2023
Rahul.
