Allahabad High Court
Jagpal Singh And Another vs State Of U.P.And Another on 7 January, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4211
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38942 of 2023
Applicant :- Jagpal Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prabhakar Pal
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Dhananjai Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Prabhakar Pal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No.11/2023, dated 14.01.2023 and cognizance order dated 04.07.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.6245 of 2023 (State vs. Jagpal and another), arising out of Case Crime No.304 of 2022, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station-Khurja Dehat, District-Bulandshahar, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar on the basis of compromise.
3. Earlier on 31.10.2023, the following order was passed:-
"1. Sri Prabhakar Pal, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, which is taken on record.
2. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Prabhakar Pal, Advocate as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 when the case is listed next.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.
4. It is submitted that due to some misunderstanding, a scuffle took place between the parties, however, at later stage, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into a compromise. It is further submitted that in the light of the aforesaid compromise, instant application may be decided and entire criminal proceedings may be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has admitted the factum of compromise and urged that the instant application may be decided on the basis thereof.
6. In this conspectus, as above, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the concerned court below on 8.11.2023 and file their compromise application. Learned trial court, on compromise application being filed, shall verify the compromise application in the presence of the parties after recording their statements and submit his verification report within one month from the date of appearance of the parties.
7. List this matter on 12.12.2023 along with the verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any.
8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. "
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 11.12.2023. A letter of the C.J.M., Bulandshahar dated 06.12.2023 has been placed alongwith certified copy of order dated 09.11.2023 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants 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.
6. 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.
7. 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,
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. 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 charge sheet No.11/2023, dated 14.01.2023 and cognizance order dated 04.07.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.6245 of 2023 (State vs. Jagpal and another), arising out of Case Crime No.304 of 2022, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station-Khurja Dehat, District-Bulandshahar, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar is hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025
Jitendra/-
