Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Mishra And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33375 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajeev Mishra And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Pandey
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 summoning order dated 13.12.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly as well as quash the criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1202 of 2019 (New No.1238 of 2021), under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
On 17.10.2022, the Court has passed following order:
"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 summoning order dated 13.12.2019 as well as criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.1202 of 2019 (New No.1238 of 2021), under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District- Bareilly (Nitu Mishra Vs. Rajeev Mishra and others).
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 6th November, 2022 as fresh.
The further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed till the next date of listing with regard to the applicants."
Pursuant to the above order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly vide order dated 23.01.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly vide order dated 23.01.2023 have been brought on record as annexure no. 1 of the supplementary affidavit and certified copy of the application with compromise is annexed on page nos. 29 and 30.
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 summoning order dated 13.12.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly as well as quash the criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1202 of 2019 (New No.1238 of 2021), under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District- Bareilly pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.3.2023
Anurag/-
