Allahabad High Court
Shakeel Ahmad And 5 Others 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:181108
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32660 of 2024
Applicant :- Shakeel Ahmad And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Hasan Parvej
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for the applicants ? (i) Shakeel Ahmad, (ii) Akeel Ahmad, (iii) Anees Ahmad, (iv) Noor Jahan, (v) Km. Firoj and (vi) Km. Afroj, learned AGA for the State Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet and cognizance order dated 23.09.2013 and 27.11.2013 as well as the proceedings of Case No. 496 of 2013, State v. Shakeel Ahmad and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur, arising out of Case Crime No. 267 of 2013, in pursuance of compromise deed dated 30.08.2024.
3. On 21.10.2024, following order was passed:
"1. Heard Mr. Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 23.09.2013 and Cognizance order dated 27.11.2013 and the entire proceeding of pending Case No.496 of 2013 (State vs. Shakeel Ahmad and Others), under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Milak, District- Rampur arising out of Case Crime No.267 of 2013 as well as stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case, pending before the learned court of Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Rampur U.P., in pursuance of compromise deed dated 30.08.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. The copy of the said compromise/mutual deed, filed before the court below, is annexed as Annexure No.3 to this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would be a futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be abuse of process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
4. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.
5. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
6. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order within a two weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, after hearing the informant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?
7. Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
8. Put up this case on 19th November, 2024, as fresh.
9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, compliance verification report received from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Rampur has been placed on record along with the order dated 29.10.2024, vide which compromise between the parties has been verified, as is evident from the office report dated 18.11.2024
5. Learned counsel for the applicants 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 states that since the parties have entered into a compromise, he has 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, charge sheet and cognizance order dated 23.09.2013 and 27.11.2013 as well as the proceedings of Case No. 496 of 2013, State v. Shakeel Ahmad and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur, arising out of Case Crime No. 267 of 2013, 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
