Allahabad High Court
Shivam Chaudhary And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 February, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18737
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31875 of 2024
Applicant :- Shivam Chaudhary And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Srivastava,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2, though learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Satendra Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 55 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2020, under sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District-Amroha, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M./FTC-2, Amroha as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 25.3.2022 on the basis of compromise.
3. On 13.10.2024, the following order was passed:-
"1. Mr. Ashish Srivastava, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Triloki Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
3. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 26.07.2021 as well as cognizance order dated 25.03.2022 and the entire proceeding of Case No.55 of 2022, (State Vs. Shivam Chaudhary and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.41 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Amroha, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate/FTC-2, Amoraha, on the basis of compromise.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. He further submits that an application u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce has been allowed on 23.05.2023, thus, they have decided to live separately. He further submits that nothing remains between two, therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicant is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the 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.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.
6. Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the parties may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order and be permitted to file an application along with proper compromise deed. 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 one month from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not.
9. Upon due verification of compromise, the Court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
10. Put up this case on 25.11.2024, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Ashish Srivastava, Advocate, as counsel for opposite party no.2.
11. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
4. In compliance of the order dated 24.02.2023, compromise verification report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated 22.11.2024. The letter of CJM, Agra dated 09.01.2025 has been placed on record along with order dated 7.1.2025 vide which compromise has been verified between the parties.
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 no.2 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 Case Crime No. 41 of 2020, under sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District-Amroha, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M./FTC-2, Amroha, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 6.2.2025
Faridul
