Allahabad High Court
Suresh Gupta And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4253
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40146 of 2023
Applicant :- Suresh Gupta And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Utsav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State.
2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer or quashing the charge sheet dated 19.12.2015 and the further proceeding of Criminal Case No.1674 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.790 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tarya Sujan (Now Police Station-Tamkuhiraj), District Kushinagar, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna, on the basis of compromise.
3. On 01.11.2023, the following order was passed:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. Owing to the mis-understanding qua property dispute between the relatives, an F.I.R. has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the present applicants. During pendency of criminal proceeding, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and arrived at a compromise out of the Court and inked compromise dated 17.8.2023, which has been filed before the court concerned. Certified copy of the compromise application has been field as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application.
3. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has nodded the factum of compromise and urged that the instant application may be decided on the basis thereof.
4. In this conspectus, as above, learned trial court before whom the compromise application dated 17.8.2023 has been filed by the parties is, hereby, directed to verify the compromise in presence of the both the parties, after recording their statements, and submit its verification report within a period of one month from date of appearance of the parties, who are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 21/22.11.2023.
5. List this matter on 22.12.2023 along with verification report, if any, submitted by the court concerned.
6. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in pursuance of Case No. 1674 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 790 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tarya Sujan (Now Police Station - Tamkuhiraj), District ? Kushinagar."
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 01.11.2023, report received from Civil Judge (SD)/ACJM,Kushinagar, has been placed on record as is evident from office report dated 08.01.2025. The letter of Civil Judge (SD)/ACJM,Kushinagar, dated 16.12.2024 has been placed on record along with compromise deed. Perusal of the aforesaid letter goes to show that the compromise has been verified vide order dated 12.12.2024 between the parties.
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 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 charge sheet19.12.2015 and the further proceeding of Criminal Case No.1674 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.790 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tarya Sujan (Now Police Station-Tamkuhiraj), District Kushinagar, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 8.1.2025
Amit
