Allahabad High Court
Sitara Begam @ Sitarunnisha And Another vs The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. ... on 17 May, 2024
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38065
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4535 of 2024
Applicant :- Sitara Begam @ Sitarunnisha And Another
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Vakalatnama and Counter Affidavit filed by Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.2 are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.
By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants Sitara Begam @ Sitarunnisha vs. Maksood @ Maksood Alam have sought quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.1292 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. C-59 of 2008, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur in terms of the compromise deed dated 25.1.2024.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants as well as respondent no.2 has entered into the compromise and settled their dispute outside the court. The copy of the compromise is on record. On the basis of the said compromise the application for compounding was given before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur in the Criminal Case No.1292 of 2009 State Vs. Maksood Alam and another. Learned court below has rejected the application for compounding on the ground that the offence is under Section 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code are not compoundable, however, while rejecting the application vide order dated 25.1.2024 the compromise entered between the parties has been verified in the presence of the parties by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Balrampur.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 concedes the argument made by learned counsel for the applicants.
Learned A.G.A. has also no objection if the impugned proceedings are quashed.
Learned counsel for the parties submits that in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus State of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the proceedings pending before learned trial court are liable to be quashed.
In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise and from perusal of the record it appears that the compromise has been verified by the trial court and the verification report is on record as well as considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases (supra), it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned criminal proceedings (supra) are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
Madhu
