Allahabad High Court
Sushil Gaba And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5027 of 2023
Applicant :- Sushil Gaba And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Singh Pundir
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adarsh Tiwari
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 04.12.2017 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 239 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Sushil Gaba & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 534 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 411 & 120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur.
On 09.02.2023, the Court has passed following order:
"Mr. Adarsh Tiwari, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.
Heard Mr. P.S.Pundir, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Adarsh Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 04.12.2017 of Case No. 239 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 534 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 411, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur as well as to stay the proceedings of Case No. 239 of 2018 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that both the parties are known to each other very well and the dispute between them is due to land. 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 a compromise. On the basis of said compromise, an affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 before the court below that he does not want to press the criminal proceedings initiated by him against the applicants. It is, thus, contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at 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 17.03.2023 before the appropriate Bench.
Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they shall make a fresh compromise application before the court below within a week from today for verification of the aforesaid compromise. They further undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 16.02.2023 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 the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.
Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order within 24 hours.
Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order along with a fresh compromise application before the court concerned within a week from today.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case.
When the matter is listed next, name of Mr. Adarsh Tiwari, Advocate shall be shown as learned counsel for opposite party no.2."
Pursuant to the above order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur vide order dated 21.02.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur vide order dated 21.02.2023 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure nos. 2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the concerned Magistrate, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that 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. 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 case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceeding of Case No. 239 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Sushil Gaba & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 534 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 411 & 120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.3.2023
Anurag
