Allahabad High Court
Shakeel And 2 Others 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:36877
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4538 of 2023
Applicant :- Shakeel And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Chandra Prakash Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sushil Kumar Mishra, 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 charge sheet dated 16.05.2010 and Cognizance order dated 21.05.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.81 of 2014 (State vs. Shakeel & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.126 of 2010, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna, District- Kushinagar, pending in the court of Upper District and Session Judge/FTC IInd Kushinagar at Padrauna, District- Kushinagar, on the basis of compromise.
3. On 23.09.2024, the following order was passed in the matter:-
"1. Heard Mr. Chandra Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Prakash Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sushil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 16.05.2010 and Cognizance order dated 21.05.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.81 of 2014 (State vs. Shakeel & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.126 of 2010, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna, District- Kushinagar as well as stay the charge sheet dated 16.05.2010 and Cognizance order dated 21.05.2010 and the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case, pending in the court of Upper District and Session Judge/FTC IInd Kushinagar at Padrauna, District- Kushinagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them out of Court. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case 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.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.
5. Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, who has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the parties may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.
6. 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.
7. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file a proper compromise deed. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, after hearing the informant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month 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?
8. Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
9. List this case on 23.10.2024.
10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
4. In compliance of the order dated 23.09.2024, compromise verification report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated 12.03.2025. The letter of District & Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna dated 01.02.2025 has been placed on record along with order dated 28.01.2025 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 charge sheet dated 16.05.2010 and Cognizance order dated 21.05.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.81 of 2014 (State vs. Shakeel & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.126 of 2010, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna, District- Kushinagar, pending in the court of Upper District and Session Judge/FTC IInd Kushinagar at Padrauna, District- Kushinagar, 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
