Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Gautam And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 March, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37051 of 2022
Applicant :- Jagdish Gautam And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
The case is taken up in the revised call.
Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears on behalf of applicants to press this application even in the revised calling of the list..
This application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the Charge sheet dated 15.08.2012 and cognizance order dated 06.11.2012 passed by CJM, Farrukhabad in Case No. 8640 of 2012, Case Crime No. 226 of 2012, under section 379, 511, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad (State Vs. Jagdish and another).
On 21.11.2022, the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing the charge sheet dated 15.08.2012 and cognizance order dated 06.11.2012 passed by CJM Farrukhabad in Case No.8640 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.226 of 2012, under Section- 379, 511, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Fatehgarh, District- Farrukhabad (State Vs. Jagdish and another).
The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that through good offices of certain well-meaning persons the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and have mutually compromised in the matter. According to the counsel there is no dispute left out any more in between the parties and they wish no more litigation in between them.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that as the opp. parties are not interested to pursue the matter pending in the lower court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the accused, the acquittal of the accused-applicants is now a foregone conclusion. It shall be a sheer abuse of the court's process, if the proceedings going on in the lower court are still allowed to go on further. Submission therefore is that in the wake of the inter-se compromise arrived at in between the parties, the impugned proceedings ought to be quashed.
Let compromise, if any, be filed before trial court, where it shall be verified in presence of both sides and after its verification, certified copy of compromise along with verification report of trial court concerned, be filed on record of this Court, by way of supplementary affidavit.
List this case on 19th December, 2022 as fresh.
The further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed till the next date of listing with regard to the applicants. "
In compliance of the aforesaid order the compromise has been verified vide order dated 02.12.2022 in the presence of parties and their respective counsels. Certified copy of the same has been placed at page 8 to the supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant on 27.01.2023.
Learned counsel for the opposite party 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 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 proceedings of Case No. 8640 of 2012, Case Crime No. 226 of 2012, under section 379, 511, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad (State Vs. Jagdish and another) on the basis of compromise are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.3.2023
Arti
