Allahabad High Court
Smt.Mango Devi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 12 May, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78654
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4057 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt.Mango Devi And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Prakash Tiwari
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Shiv Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4595 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.447 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 352, 504, 506 and 419 I.P.C., Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Bareilly, on the basis of compromise dated 18.02.2020.
3. On 12.08.2021, the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge-sheet dated 6.11.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4595 of 2018 (State Vs. Mango Devi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 447 of 2016, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471, 352, 504, 506, 419 I.P.C., Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, Shri Shiv Prakash Tiwari, does not dispute the correctness of the dispute.
Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
List after two months.
Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants."
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 12.08.2021, a compromise verification report from A.C.J.M., Court No.2, Bareilly is kept on record as is evident from the office report dated 07.11.2025. The letter of A.C.J.M., Bareilly dated 24.09.2021 is placed along with the order dated 24.09.2021, by which compromise between the parties has been verified.
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 A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for 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.
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 entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4595 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.447 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 352, 504, 506 and 419 I.P.C., Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District- Bareilly, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 12.5.2025
CS/-
