Allahabad High Court
Arif Khan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 February, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18766
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21168 of 2024
Applicant :- Arif Khan And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Nasim Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Kalim
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mohd. Nasim Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Divya Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mohd. Kalim, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State.
2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 1644 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 556 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Bisauli, District Badaun, pending in the court of J.M.(J.D.)-I, Badaun in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
3. On 29.07.2024, the following order was passed:-
"Short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2/informant filed in Court today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 1644 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 556 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Bisauli, District Badaun, pending in the court of J.M.(J.D.)-I, Badaun in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on account of intervention of the well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the said compromise will be filed before the court concerned within two weeks from today. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
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.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that in case the parties file an appropriate application for compromise before the trial court concerned within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be verified by the court concerned in accordance with law and 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.
Put up this case on 05.09.2024 as fresh.
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 29.07.2024, compromise between the parties has been verified by order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Bisauli, Budaun, in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels. Certified copy of the verification order has been passed on to the Court today, which is kept on record.
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 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, proceedings of criminal case no. 1644 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 556 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Bisauli, District Badaun, pending in the court of J.M.(J.D.)-I, Badaun in terms of the compromise arrived at 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.
