Allahabad High Court
Sagir Ahmad And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51803
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28844 of 2024
Applicant :- Sagir Ahmad And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Gangwar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vipin Gangwar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet No.56 of 2023 dated 14.02.2023, cognizance/ summoning order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly in Case No. 1353 of 2023 (State v. Sagir Ahmad and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2023, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, Bareilly, on the basis of compromise.
3. Earlier Application U/S 482 No. 4005 of 2024 was filed, wherein on 03.04.2024 the following order was passed:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State- opposite party no. 1.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the cognizance/ summoning order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly in Case No. 1353 of 2023, State v. Sagir Ahmad and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2023, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly as well as entire proceedings of the said case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 04.09.2023 has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 do not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court concerned and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.
4. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.
5. In view of the above, the parties including the injured are directed to appear before the court concerned along with an application for verification of compromise deed so filed as well as a certified copy of this order within three 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, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months 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.
6. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
7. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order compromise has been verified by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, Bareilly vide order dated 06.05.2024, certified copy of the same has been annexed as annexure No.7 of the 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 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 proceedings of charge-sheet No.56 of 2023 dated 14.02.2023, cognizance/ summoning order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly in Case No. 1353 of 2023 (State v. Sagir Ahmad and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2023, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, 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 :- 9.4.2025
Abhishek Singh
