Allahabad High Court
Amit Sahu And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 March, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41375 of 2022
Applicant :- Amit Sahu And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
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.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of entire proceedings of Crl. Case No. 16484 of 2022 (State Vs. Amit Sahu an others), arising out of Case Crime No. 322 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Babina, District Jhansi pending in the court of J.M-II, Jhansi.
On 13.12.2022, the Court has passed following order:
"Short counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and 3, taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of entire proceedings of Crl. Case No. 16484 of 2022 (State Vs. Amit Sahu an others), case crime No. 332 of 2021, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Babina, District Jhansi pending in the court of J.M-II, Jhansi on the basis of compromise between the applicants and O.P. No. 3 on 18.11.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the compromise.
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.
List after two months.
Until further orders of the court, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants."
Pursuant to the above order, the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Jhansi vide order dated 12.01.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Jhansi vide order dated 12.01.2023 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure no. SA-1 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 of Crl. Case No. 16484 of 2022 (State Vs. Amit Sahu an others), arising out of Case Crime No. 332 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Babina, District Jhansi pending in the court of J.M-II, Jhansi are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.3.2023
Anurag
