Allahabad High Court
Omkar Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1420 of 2023
Applicant :- Omkar Singh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Kumar Kushwaha
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
Heard Mr. Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Surya Prakash Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Atul Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
On 31.01.2023, the following order was passed:-
"Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead Kalpana Yadav wife of Omkar Yadav as opposite party no.2 during the course of the day.
Sri Atul Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in the Court which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Atul Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA and perused the material on record.
By means of the present application, the prayer sought by the applicant is to quash the charge sheet dated 25.06.2014 as well as summoning order dated 09.07.2014 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 671 of 2014 arising out of case crime no. 106 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 326, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Month, District Jhansi pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Moth, Jhansi on the basis of compromise deed dated 02.11.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that parties have come to terms and compromise deed dated 02.11.2022 is annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit.
Under the circumstances, the parties are required to appear before the court concerned/ Judicial Magistrate, Moth, Jhansi and get the covenant and signature of the compromise verified by the concerned court, who shall after call upon both the parties shall pass suitable orders on the verification of the compromise deed within next 15 days.
After 15 days, learned counsel for the applicant is required to file supplementary affidavit annexing the order passed by court concerned.
Put up this matter as fresh on 28.02.2022 showing the name of Sri Atul Kumar Kushwaha, as counsel for the opposite party no.2.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant to enable the parties to get the compromise deed verified."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise has been verified between the parties by verification order dated 22.02.2023 by the Court below in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels. Certified copy of the verification order dated 22.02.2023 has been placed at page 9 of the supplementary affidavit filed today, is kept on record.
Mr. Surya Prakash Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Atul Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that wife namely, Kalpana is residing with her husband namely, Omkar Singh Yadav.
Learned counsel for the parties submit 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 charge sheet dated 25.06.2014 as well as summoning order dated 09.07.2014 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 671 of 2014 arising out of case crime no. 106 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 326, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Month, District Jhansi pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Moth, Jhansi on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
Rahul.
