Allahabad High Court
Sugriv Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3663 of 2017
Applicant :- Sugriv Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiva Priya Prasad
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shiva Priya Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings as well as the impugned order dated 3.1.2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Jude, F.T.C. No.2, Farrukhabad in S.T. No.167 of 2008, Case No.2295 of 2007 (Case Crime No.464 of 2007), under Sections 307, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Rajepur, district Farrukhabad.
On 07.02.2017, the following order was passed:-
"Sri Shiva Priya Prasad, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 by filing his Vakalatnama, which is being taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shiva Priya Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C., application has been filed for quashing the order dated 3.1.2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Jude, F.T.C. No.2, Farrukhabad in S.T. No.167 of 2008, Case No.2295 of 2007 (Case Crime No.464 of 2007), under Sections 307, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Rajepur, district Farrukhabad.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the private dispute between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 has been amicably settled/compromised, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application.
Sri Shiva Priya Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also states that the private dispute between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 has been amicably settled/compromised and that he also does not want to proceed any further with the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that a copy of the aforesaid compromise has also been filed before the concerned Court below, which has been rejected on the ground that the proceedings of the present case are under Section 307 I.P.C., which is not compoundable.
Let the aforesaid compromise be filed before the concerned Court below for verification, which may be done within a period of three months from today, under intimation to this Court.
List after expiry of aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. "
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise between the parties has been verified by the Court below, vide order dated 17.03.2017, in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels. Certified copy of the aforesaid order has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
Learned counsel for opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and he has no objection, if the proceedings in 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,
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) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings in S.T. No.167 of 2008, Case No.2295 of 2007 (Case Crime No.464 of 2007), under Sections 307, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Rajepur, district Farrukhabad on the basis of compromise are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 15.3.2023
Arti
