Allahabad High Court
Kamal Singh @ Pankaj Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 November, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180832
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32860 of 2024
Applicant :- Kamal Singh @ Pankaj Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Gaur
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder for the State, and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1375 of 2014 (State v. Kamal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 62 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kagaraul, District Agra, charge sheet no. 48 of 2011 dated 23.06.2011 as well as cognizance order dated 04.11.2011.
3. Earlier, on 27.09.2024 following order was passed by this Court:
"1. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State are present.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 23.06.2011 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 04.11.2011, of Criminal Case No. 1375/2014 (State Vs. Kamal Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 62/2011, under Sections 498A, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Kagaraul, District- Agra, pending in the court of A.C.J. (J.D.), Court No.8, Agra, in terms of the compromise between the parties
3. It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has already been filed before the court concerned. It is submitted that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. 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.
5. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure the presence of the parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on the next date fixed and thereafter the court concerned, 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.
6. Parties are directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.
7. List this case on 28.10.2024, as fresh.
8. 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, compromise verification report has been placed on record, as is evident from the office report dated 25.10.2024. Copy of the letter of Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 8, Agra has also been placed on the record along with the order dated 15.10.2024 by which compromise between the parties has been verified.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court concerned, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State accepts that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed alongwith verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
7. Before proceeding 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; and
5. 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, 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 hereinabove, 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 proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1375 of 2014 (State v. Kamal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 62 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kagaraul, District Agra, charge sheet no. 48 of 2011 dated 23.06.2011 as well as cognizance order dated 04.11.2011, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 19.11.2024
DS
