Allahabad High Court
Ravi Bhardwaj Alias Mukul Bhardwaj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 May, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93836
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17372 of 2023
Applicant :- Ravi Bhardwaj Alias Mukul Bhardwaj
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Mahendra Kumar,Ranjeet Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyavrat Sahai,Sunil Dutt Kautilya
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ridam Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sunil Dutt Kautilya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the State.
This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the Summoning order dated 11.04.2023 along with the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.18752/9 of 2021 (Paridhi vs. Ravi Bhardwaj alias Mukul Bhardwaj and Others), under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Nai Mandi, District- Muzaffarnagar, on the basis of compromise.
3. On 24.04.2025, the following order was passed:-
" 1. Supplementary Affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant in Court is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Shashidhar Pandey., learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 11.04.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.18752/9 of 2021 (Paridhi v. Ravi Bhardwaj alias Mukul Bhardwaj and others), under section 406 IPC, P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and the opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants. The compromise has taken place between them on 08.04.2025 and the compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant.
5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. In view of above facts, the parties shall file an application along with the compromise deed and appear before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise in First Week of May, 2025. On receiving the said application, the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise and shall prepare a verification report. The concerned Court shall send the verification report to this Court, which may be placed in the file.
7. Put up this matter as fresh on 23.05.2025 along with Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.9189 of 2023 and report of Court below.
8. Meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, in the aforesaid case, till the next date of listing."
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 24.04.2025, the concerned Court of ACJM, Muzaffarnagar has verified the compromise vide order dated 16.05.2025 in the presence of parties along with their respective counsels. Certified copy of the aforesaid compromise verification order dated 16.05.2025 has been annexed on page-10A of the supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the compromise entered into between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
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.
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,
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.
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.
Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.18752/9 of 2021 (Paridhi vs. Ravi Bhardwaj alias Mukul Bhardwaj and Others), under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Nai Mandi, District- Muzaffarnagar, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 30.5.2025
Kalp Nath Singh
