Sanjeev Kumar Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 7309 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta And Another 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:90843
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8629 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Gupta And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Asif
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar, Brij Raj,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Asif, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No.311 of 2024, dated 13.06.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 17.10.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No.3311 of 2024 (State vs. Sanjeev and another), arising out of Case Crime No.286 of 2023, under Sections 304A IPC and Section 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Banna Devi, District-Aligarh, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional District and Session Judge, Aligarh on the basis of compromise.

3. Earlier on 18.03.2025, the following order was passed:-

"1. Short counter affidavit alongwith Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Asif, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet No.311 of 2024, dated 13.06.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 17.10.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No.3311 of 2024 (State vs. Sanjeev and another), arising out of Case Crime No.286 of 2023, under Sections 304A IPC and Section 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Banna Devi, District-Aligarh, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional District and Session Judge, Aligarh on the basis of compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to some misconception, the FIR was lodged, however, after investigation it was found that death was due to negligence of employer, therefore, compensation has already been paid by the applicant to the family of the deceased. He further submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, a compromise affidavit of both the parties has been annexed as Annexure No.15 of this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be 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.

5. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

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 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?

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

9. Put up this case on 21.04.2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Amit Kumar as counsel for the opposite party no.2.

10. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Aligarh 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, same has been returned or not.

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

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

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise verification report is kept on record as is evident from the office report dated 19.04.2025. As no report of the District Magistrate, Aligarh or District Social Welfare Officer, Aligarh was there to show whether compensation has been received by the opposite party no.2 or not. Therefore, on 28.04.2025, the following order was passed:-

"Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the applicants filed today in the Court, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

In compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated, though compromise verification report is placed on record but there is no report as to whether complainant/ victim has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, same has been returned or not.

The District Magistrate, Aligarh shall send a report in this regard.

Put up this case, as fresh, on 14.05.2025.

Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing.

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

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report from the District Magistrate, Aligarh is kept on record as is evident from the office report dated 26.05.2025. A letter of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh dated 11.04.2025 is placed alongwith copy of order dated 02.04.2025 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels. The letter of the District Magistrate, Aligarh dated 07.05.2025 mentions about no compensation being given to the victim.

6. 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.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as counsel for the opposite party no.2 do 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.

8. 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,

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. 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, the charge sheet No.311 of 2024, dated 13.06.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 17.10.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No.3311 of 2024 (State vs. Sanjeev and another), arising out of Case Crime No.286 of 2023, under Sections 304A IPC and Section 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Banna Devi, District-Aligarh, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional District and Session Judge, Aligarh is hereby quashed.

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

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

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

Order Date :- 27.5.2025

Jitendra/-