Allahabad High Court
Sameer And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 10 February, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19923
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31853 of 2024
Applicant :- Sameer And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Deepak Rana, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceedings, including charge-sheets dated 08.02.2023 & 18.07.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 28.03.2023, of S.T. No. 112/2024 (State Vs. Mushahid and another) and S.T. No.113 of 2024 (State Vs. Tarannum), arising out of Case Crime No. 917/2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Hapur Nagar, District- Hapur, pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Hapur, in terms of the compromise between the parties.
3. On 21.09.2024, the following order was passed:-
"1. Learned counsel for the applicants 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-sheets dated 08.02.2023 & 18.07.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 28.03.2023, of S.T. No. 112/2024 (State Vs. Mushahid and another) and S.T. No.113 of 2024 (State Vs. Tarannum), arising out of Case Crime No. 917/2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Hapur Nagar, District- Hapur, pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Hapur, 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 21.10.2024.
8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2024, report receive from learned Session Judge is kept on record as is evident from office report dated 10.02.2025. The letter of Session Judge, Hapur dated 22.10.2024 mentions about the compromise for verification. Certified copy of the verification order dated 22.10.2024 has been placed at page-8 of the supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants.
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 accepts 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, proceedings of charge-sheets dated 08.02.2023 & 18.07.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 28.03.2023 and S.T. No. 112/2024 (State Vs. Mushahid and another) and S.T. No.113 of 2024 (State Vs. Tarannum), arising out of Case Crime No. 917/2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Hapur Nagar, District- Hapur, pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Hapur, in terms of the compromise between the parties, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.2.2025
Rahul.
