Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 March, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36893
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45433 of 2023
Applicant :- Om Prakash
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar,Dilip Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vivek Singh Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, 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 cognizance order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Criminal Case No. 7793 of 2014 (State Vs. Om Prakash) in connection with charge sheet No. 13 of 2014 dated 6.5.2014 registered as Case Crime No. 105 of 2014, under Sections 452, 504, 506, 354-B I.P.C., P.S. Kaushambi, District Kaushambi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, on the basis of compromise.
3. On 16.01.2024, the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Bhasker Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
The present application has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Criminal Case No. 7793 of 2014 in connection with charge sheet No. 13 of 2014 dated 6.5.2014 registered as Case Crime No. 105 of 2014 under Sections 452, 504, 506, 354-B I.P.C., P.S. Kaushambi, District Kaushambi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi on the basis of the joint compromise dated 07.10.2023 between the parties due to their own free will and consent. It is further prayed to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the parties have entered into compromise which is dated 07.10.2023, copy of the said compromise is annexed asAnnexure no.6 to the affidavit in support of present 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed.
Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicant shall file the said compromise within a period of two weeks from today before the court concerned who shall verify the same within three weeks thereafter and send his report to this Court.
List after two months.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."
4. In compliance of the order dated 16.01.2024, compromise verification report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated 12.03.2025. The letter of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi dated 23.08.2024 has been placed on record along with order dated 30.01.2024 vide which compromise has been verified 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 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 proceedings of cognizance order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Criminal Case No. 7793 of 2014 (State Vs. Om Prakash) in connection with charge sheet No. 13 of 2014 dated 6.5.2014 registered as Case Crime No. 105 of 2014, under Sections 452, 504, 506, 354-B I.P.C., P.S. Kaushambi, District Kaushambi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.3.2025
Abhishek Singh
