Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 May, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118556
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43636 of 2018
Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Jeet Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Asheesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Ms. Amar Jeet Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sanjay Ojha, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Asheesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
Proceedings of the present case are arisen out of Complaint Case No.3339 of 2017 (Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar and others) under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Lal Kurti, District-Meerut, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier on 04.12.2018, protection was granted to the applicants. During pendency of this application, the parties have entered into compromise, therefore, on 23.10.2021, the following order was passed:-
"Sri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel has submitted that he has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 on 22.10.2021 in the registry, however, the same is not on record.
Sri Amarjeet Upadhyaya learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Asihish Tiwari learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the compromise has already entered into between the parties but the said compromise has not been verified by the court concerned.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 has admitted the fact that the matter has been reconciled between the parties, which has been reduced in writing.
Let the said compromise deed be verified by the court concerned for which parties will approach the concerned court on 10.11.2021.
Put up on 25.11.2021 along with supplementary affidavit annexing thereto a certified copy of the aforesaid verified compromise deed showing the name of Sri Ashish Tiwari as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. "
In compliance of the aforesaid order, supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing the certified copy of the order dated 10.11.2021 vide which the compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.
Learned counsel for the applicant 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. for the State 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 criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.3339 of 2017 (Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar and others) under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Lal Kurti, District-Meerut, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut is hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 26.5.2023
Jitendra/-
