Allahabad High Court
Gurudayal Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 March, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32503
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 106 of 2025
Applicant :- Gurudayal Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vidya Sagar Dwivedi,Vishal Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
2. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vishal Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present application has been filed by the applicants to quash charge-sheet dated 09.06.2006, entire proceedings of Case No. 2351 of 2018 (State v. Gurudayal Singh & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 702 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 420 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gajraula, District Pilibhit, on the basis of compromise.
4. On 16.01.2025, the following order was passed:-
"Short Counter Affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. Office to register the same.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicants to quash charge-sheet dated 09.06.2006, entire proceedings of Case No. 2351 of 2018 (State v. Gurudayal Singh & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 702 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 420 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gajraula, District Pilibhit, on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that husband has already been acquitted, however, the applicants who are father-in-law, brother-in-law and mother-in-law could not appear before the court concerned, therefore, after issuance of non-bailable warrants proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had been initiated. However, during pendency of said proceedings the parties have amicably settled their dispute and to that effect a compromise has been executed, which has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the petition, therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would be futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be abuse of process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Learned AGA does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
In view of the above, parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed and certified copy of this order. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties and recording their statements will pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not.
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.
Put up this case on 18.02.2025, as fresh.
Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
5. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 16.01.2025, compromise between the parties has been verified by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Pilibhit, vide order dated 06.02.2025 in presence of the parties as well as their respective counsels. Certified copy of the verification order has been placed on page-11 of the supplementary affidavit filed today.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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,
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, proceedings of charge-sheet dated 09.06.2006, entire proceedings of Case No. 2351 of 2018 (State v. Gurudayal Singh & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 702 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 420 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gajraula, District Pilibhit, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 5.3.2025/Rahul.
