Allahabad High Court
Anurag Tripathi And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 May, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100042
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12643 of 2022
Applicant :- Anurag Tripathi And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. 1004 of 2020 (State Vs. Anurag Tripathi and others) as well as Charge-sheet No. 294 of 2019, dated 29.08.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Fafund, District Auraiya, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya, on the basis of compromise entered into by the parties.
Earlier, on 23.05.2022, the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. 1004 of 2020 (State Vs. Anurag Tripathi and others) as well as Charge-sheet No. 294 of 2019, dated 29.08.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Fafund, District Auraiya, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya.
Learned counsel for the applicant 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.
Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. "
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 23.05.2022, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 09.05.2023. A letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya dated 14.06.2022 has been placed alongwith certified copy of order dated 10.06.2022 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and the husband and wife have decided to separate from each other. Therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-
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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 1004 of 2020 (State Vs. Anurag Tripathi and others) as well as Charge-sheet No. 294 of 2019, dated 29.08.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Fafund, District Auraiya, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya is hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
In case, the compromise verification order has been passed concealing certain facts or the amount as agreed between the parties has not been given to the opposite party no.2 Soni, it is open to the opposite party no.2 to move an appropriate application before the court concerned or before this Court and in such case, the Court concerned shall pass orders in accordance with law.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 9.5.2023
Jitendra/-
