Allahabad High Court
Sarvjeet Singh And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64381
Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9588 of 2023
Applicant :- Sarvjeet Singh And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Civil Sectt. Homes And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Kumar Pande,Prashant Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Kumar,Kunwar Sushant Prakash
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Shri Kunwar Sushant Prakash and Shri Atul Kumar, Advocates have filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the material placed on record.
Instant application has been filed with prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet and summoning dated 09.02.2021 and further consequential orders passed in Case Crime No.0596 of 2018 under Sections 294, 419, 420, 384, 506, 468, 471, 388 IPC, Police Station- Mohammadi, District- Khiri pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohammadi Khiri on the basis of compromise deed dated 28.03.2023.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he is innocent and falsely been implicated. He next added that due to misunderstanding the instant FIR has been lodged and thereafter the parties have settled their dispute and settlement deed has been executed, i.e., on 28.03.2023.
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:-
"9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant."
He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered in Sachin Jain v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another, Criminal Appeal No.510 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) NO.3009 of 2022.
Referring the aforesaid judgments, he submits that since the parties have settled the dispute and there is no dispute further in between the parties. He next added that this Court vide order dated 24.05.2023 passed in Application under Section 482 No.4537 of 2023, referred the matter to the Court below, wherein the compromise deed has been verified vide order dated 13.06.2023. He submits that further criminal proceedings against the present applicants, in such a situation, would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicants, as such, the same may be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have entered into compromise in the light of ratio of judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari (supra) and thus the criminal proceeding against the applicants may be dropped.
On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.
Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 28.03.2023 and said compromise has been verified on 13.06.2023 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal case.
In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 28.03.2023 and no grievance remains to be agitated and as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
Accordingly, criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
The compromise shall be part of this order.
The application is allowed accordingly.
Consigned to record.
Order Date :- 4.10.2023
Manoj K.
