Allahabad High Court
Bijender Singh And Another 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. - 14256 of 2020
Applicant :- Bijender Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anupam Dubey
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
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 the charge sheet dated 05.10.2019 and cognizance order as well as summoning order dated 21.11.2019 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 2247 of 2019 (State Vs. Bijender Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2019, under Sections- 498A, 323 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Gautam Budh Nagar.
On 28.09.2020, the Court has passed following order:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 05.10.2019 and cognizance order as well as summoning order dated 21.11.2019 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 2247 of 2019 (State Vs. Bijender Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2019, under Sections- 498A, 323 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet had been submitted, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing and the compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-5 of this application.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.
5. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
6. Put up this case after two months i.e. 2nd December, 2020.
7. Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants."
Pursuant to the above order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Gautam Budh Nagar order dated 18.12.2020 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Gautam Budh Nagar order dated 18.12.2020 and the compromise have been placed along with order sheet.
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 proceedings of Case No. 2247 of 2019 (State Vs. Bijender Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2019, under Sections- 498A, 323 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Gautam Budh Nagar are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.3.2023
Anurag
