Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Jain And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123960
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22594 of 2024
Applicant :- Rakesh Jain And 7 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Maheshwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Lakhan Deobanshi
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the State.
2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.5264/9 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.403 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar, on the basis of compromise dated 06.03.2024.
3. On 06.05.2024, the following order was passed in Application u/s 482 No.14743 of 2024 (Rakesh Jain And 7 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another):-
"1. Vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit filed by Sri Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No.2, are taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Raj Bahadur Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.5264/9 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.403 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 06.03.2024.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that applicant no.1 is father-in-law of opposite party no.2 and dispute between them is purely personal in nature and now both the parties have settled their dispute amicably which was also reduced in a written compromise dated 06.03.2024 and original deed of the same has been filed in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Muzaffar Nagar.
5. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for opposite party No.2 .
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, present application is disposed of with direction to the court below to verify the compromise after summoning the parties and after verification of the aforesaid compromise, the court below will permit the parties to obtain certified copy of verified compromise.
7. The aforesaid exercise of verification shall be completed within a period of two months and for a period of two months no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
8. It is further provided that the parties are at liberty to file a fresh application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceeding on the basis of verified copy of compromise.
9. With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of."
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order 06.05.2024, compromise between the parties has been verified vide order dated 06.06.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar, certified copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-6 of this application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,
(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,
(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
8. 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) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, proceedings of Case No.5264/9 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.403 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar, on the basis of compromise dated 06.03.2024, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.8.2024
Rahul.
