Allahabad High Court
Saleem And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 3 January, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:498
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11876 of 2024
Applicant :- Saleem And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Nafees
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned Advocate has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant/opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main reliefs :-
"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying Affidavit, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Sessions Trial No.2960/2023 (State Versus Mohd. Kaleem & Others) pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (A.T.S.) Lucknow initiated against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet dated 5.11.2019 arising out of Case Crime No.237/2019, Under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 504, 307, 427 IPC, Police Station -Jankipuram, District - Lucknow as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 10.6.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Fifth, Court No.29, Lucknow in terms of the compromise deed dated 3.9.2024 as well as its verification report/order dated 8.10.2024 prepared by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, ATS, Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this Petition.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Sessions Trial No.2960/2023 (State Versus Mond. Kaleem & Others) pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (A.T.S.) Lucknow initiated against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet dated 5.11.2019 arising out of Case Crime No.237/2019, Under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 504, 307, 427 IPC, Police Station -Jankipuram, District - Lucknow as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 10.6.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Fifth, Court No.29, Lucknow, during the pendency of this Petition."
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the F.I.R. names of the applicants were indicated on being informed by the persons present at the place of incident and thereafter on coming to know that the applicants were not involved in the crime, the parties have entered into compromise and based upon the said fact, the applicants approached this Court by filing Application U/S 482 No.8194/2024 and considering the averments made in theApplication U/S 482 No.8194/2024 and the documents on record as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 12.09.2024 referred the matter to the trial court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and a perusal of compromise deed and the order dated 08.10.2024 of the trial court (Annexure No.9), whereby the compromise has been verified, would show that parties have settled their dispute as such the prayer sought in the present application be acceded in the light of Settlement Agreement/compromise.
With regard to acceding the prayer sought in the present application on the basis of compromise/settlement, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409.
Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite parties does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the order dated 08.10.2024 of trial court as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the same are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax immediately for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 3.1.2025
ML/-
