Ajay Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 7306 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ajay Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 May, 2025

Author: Manju Rani Chauhan

Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90698
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10884 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Ajay Kumar And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Salman Ahmad,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Ms. Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 14.10.2024 and cognizance order dated 05.02.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No.12 of 2025 (State vs. Harisankar @ Lalla and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0114 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 BNS and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Dakor, District-Jalaun, pending before the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai on the basis of compromise.

3. Earlier on 25.04.2025, the following order was passed:-

"Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

Mr. Salman Ahmad, Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

Heard Mr. Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 14.10.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 05.02.2025 and entire proceedings of S.T. No.12/2025 (State vs. Harishankar @ Lalla and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0114 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.-Dakor, District-Jalaun, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act), Jalaun at Orai, District- Jalaun.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, compromise deed has been filed before the Court concerned mentioning that parties do not want to proceed with the case. Copy of said compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure No.5 to this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would futile exercise and sheer wastage of time of the Court and will be an abuse of 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.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do 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, the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a 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, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, 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 statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

Put up this case on 27.05.2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Salman Ahmad, Advocate, as counsel for opposite party no.2.

Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Jalaun shall also verify and send a report to this Court as to whether the opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, the same has been returned or not.

Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order.

Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 26.05.2025. A letter of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai, dated 21.05.2025 has been placed alongwith certified copy of order dated 17.05.2025 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels. The letter of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai also mentions about the compensation being returned by the victim.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

7. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

5. 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. 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 14.10.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 05.02.2025 and entire proceedings of S.T. No.12/2025 (State vs. Harishankar @ Lalla and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0114 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.-Dakor, District-Jalaun, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act), Jalaun at Orai, District- Jalaun is hereby quashed.

11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith.

Order Date :- 27.5.2025

Jitendra/-