Allahabad High Court
Umakant Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 November, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174853
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28551 of 2024
Applicant :- Umakant Mishra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Tiwari,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Ms. Kirti Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 06.02.2022 and Cognizance/Summoning order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3, Bareilly in Case No.2977/2022 (State vs. Umakant Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No.0437 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Hafizganj, District- Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3, Bareilly, on the basis of compromise.
3. On 11.09.2024, the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2/informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 06.02.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 14.09.2022, of criminal case no. 2977 of 2022, arising out of case crime no. 0437 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Hafizganj, District Bareilly, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-03, Bareilly in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
It is submitted that on account of intervention of the well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has already been filed before the trial court concerned. It is further submitted that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the trial court concerned or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 23.09.2024 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date.
Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.
Put up as fresh on 17.10.2024.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action would be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order for compromise verification dated 11.09.2024, a letter of the concerned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.03, Bareilly dated 23.09.2024 has been placed on record along with the compromise deed mentioning therein that the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties vide order dated 23.09.2024 as is evident form office report dated 16.10.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 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, the entire proceeding of the charge sheet dated 06.02.2022 and Cognizance/Summoning order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3, Bareilly in Case No.2977/2022 (State vs. Umakant Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No.0437 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Hafizganj, District- Bareilly, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.11.2024
Kalp Nath Singh
