Allahabad High Court
Deepak Prajapati And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116141
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17227 of 2021
Applicant :- Deepak Prajapati And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Om Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for for quashing cognizance order dated 27.07.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi as well as the entire proceeding of Case No.6385 of 2020, State vs. Deepak Prajapati and others, arising out of Case Crime No.0868 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 294, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrte, Jhansi.
Earlier, on 27.11.2021, the following order was passed:-
"Short counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Om Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for for quashing cognizance order dated 27.07.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi as well as entire proceeding of Case No.6385 of 2020, State vs. Deepak Prajapati and others, arising out of Case Crime No.0868 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 294, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrte, Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that nothing as alleged has been committed by the applicants, however, the applicants and the complainant have entered into a compromise on 30.10.2021. They have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and have decided not to contest the case against each other. Copy of the compromise affidavit dated 30.10.2021 is on record as Annexure No.SA-1 to the affidavit.
In view of the above, the parties are directed to approach the court concerned by filing appropriate application for verification of the compromise within two weeks from today and the Court concerned, after receiving the application, shall verify the compromise in presence of both the parties and submit its report to this Court within four weeks, thereafter.
List in the week commencing 03.01.2022 in the additional cause list before the appropriate Bench.
Meanwhile, process, if any, is found to be issued against the applicants, the same shall not be given effect to.
It is made clear that this case shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench. "
In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 05.01.2022. A letter dated 22.12.2021 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi has been placed alongwith copy of order dated 22.12.2021 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 therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have 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 entire proceeding of Case No.6385 of 2020, State vs. Deepak Prajapati and others, arising out of Case Crime No.0868 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 294, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrte, Jhansi is hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
Jitendra/-
