Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam Tripathi Alias Ghanshyam ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 April, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59577
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13310 of 2025
Applicant :- Ghanshyam Tripathi Alias Ghanshyam Tiwari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Deepak Kapoor, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 28.02.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.58 of 2018 (Vikram Prasad vs. Ghanshyam Tiwari), under Sections 352, 504 IPC and 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bakhria, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, pending before the court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sant Kabir Nagar on the basis of compromise.
4. Earlier, the applicant has approached before this Court by means of filing an application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.23493 of 2019, wherein the following order was passed:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
2. Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 28.02.2019 passed by Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sant Kabir Nagar in Complaint Case No.58 of 2018, under Sections 352, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sant Kabir Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have settled their dispute. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that the minor dispute between the applicant and opposite party no.2 has culminated in the impugned complaint proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the parties are of the same village. He further submitted that the dispute has been settled amicably and entered into the compromise dated 29.10.2021 between them. Copy the same has been annexed at page no.7 of the short-counter affidavit. He further submitted that the said compromise had already been filed before the Court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sant Kabir Nagar.
4. Considering the aforesaid submission, applicant is directed to file original deed of compromise before the trial court within a period of 15 days. In case, such compromise is filed before the trial court within the aforesaid period, the trial court will verify the same after summoning the parties and it is further directed that after verification, the trial court will submit its report.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off. "
5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise between the parties has been verified by order dated 29.05.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sant Kabir Nagar in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels. A certified copy of the order dated 29.05.2024 has been annexed as Annexure No.5 to this application affidavit.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.
7. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
8. Before proceeding any 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,
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 28.02.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.58 of 2018 (Vikram Prasad vs. Ghanshyam Tiwari), under Sections 352, 504 IPC and 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bakhria, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, pending before the court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sant Kabir Nagar is hereby quashed.
12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025
Jitendra/-
