Allahabad High Court
Abrar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 May, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106946
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26955 of 2018
Applicant :- Abrar And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhanshu Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
On 16.12.2021, the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet No. 58 of 2018 dated 3.6.2018, cognizance order dated 12.7.2018 and further proceedings of Case No. 4310 of 2018 (State vs. Gulzar Husain and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0021 of 2018, under Sections 384, 452, 506 IPC, police station Visharatganj, district Bareilly pending in the court of ACJM-8th, Bareilly.
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 produced in writing.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the dispute.
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 applicants in the aforesaid case."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise verification report is kept on record as is evident from office report dated 15.05.2023. A letter of Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly dated 04.05.2022 has been placed on record along with order dated 04.05.2022 vide which compromise has been verified in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of the aforesaid compromise being verified by the Court concerned, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also affirms that the parties have entered into compromise, they have no objection if the proceedings of 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; and
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) 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 counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of charge sheet No. 58 of 2018 dated 3.6.2018, cognizance order dated 12.07.2018 and further proceedings of Case No. 4310 of 2018 (State vs. Gulzar Husain and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0021 of 2018, under Sections 384, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Visharatganj, District Bareilly, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-8th, Bareilly, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023
Rahul.
