Allahabad High Court
Amit Bajpai vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10701
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41524 of 2023
Applicant :- Amit Bajpai
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pt. S.P. Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Pt. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Aditya Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 16.01.2018 bearing charge-sheet no.02 of 2018, cognizance order dated 12.4.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1668 of 2018 (State Vs. Amit Bajpai), arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2016, under Section 498A, 323, 406, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana Nawabad, District Jhansi, on the basis of compromise.
3. On 08.11.2023, the following order was passed in the matter:-
"1. Heard Pt. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Archana Maurya on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the chargesheet dated 16.01.2018 bearing charge-sheet no.02 of 2018 (State Vs. Amit Bajpai) and proceedings of Case Crime No.71 of 2016, under Section 498A,323,406,506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana Nawabad, District Jhansi, as well as cognizance order dated 12.4.2018 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC/ACJM, Jhansi.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant and opposite party no.2 is that the present matter is matrimonial dispute and both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and which was also reduced into written compromise dated 1.4.2023, copy of the same was also filed before the Civil Judge (J.D.)FTC/ACJM, Jhansi.
4. Considering the aforesaid submission, parties are directed to file the original deed of the compromise before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)FTC/ACJM, Jhansi, within a period of 15 days and in case such compromise was filed by the parties, the same shall be verified by the learned Magistrate, after summoning the parties, and thereafter, on verification of the same, send report along with a copy of the verified compromise to this court, before the next date fixed.
5. List in the week commencing 16.1.2024 before the appropriate Bench.
6. Till the next date of listing, proceeding of Case Crime No.71 of 2016, under Section 498A,323,406,506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana Nawabad, District Jhansi, as well as cognizance order dated 12.4.2018 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC/ACJM, Jhansi, shall remain stayed.
7. Office is directed to print the name of Ms. Archana Maurya for the opposite party no.2."
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order a report from Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ F.T.C. CAW/J.M. Jhansi dated 19.12.2023 is placed in record as is evident from office report dated 24.01.2024. Certified copy of the order dated 19.12.2023 vide which compromise between the parties has been verified is also on record along with aforesaid report.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State 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 charge-sheet dated 16.01.2018 bearing charge-sheet no.02 of 2018, cognizance order dated 12.4.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1668 of 2018 (State Vs. Amit Bajpai), arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2016, under Section 498A, 323, 406, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana Nawabad, District Jhansi, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.1.2025
Abhishek Singh
