Allahabad High Court
Digambar Pandey And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 October, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172241 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33009 of 2024 Applicant :- Digambar Pandey And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Connected with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32358 of 2024 Applicant :- Shashikant Pandey And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Mishra Connected with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34286 of 2024 Applicant :- Digambar Pandey And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,G.A. Connected with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32219 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajnikant Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicants in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 33009 of 2024 (Digambar Pandey and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 34286 of 2024 (Digambar Pandey and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicants in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 32219 of 2024 (Rajnikant Pandey and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 32358 of 2024 (Shashikant Pandey and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel representing first informant in respective applications i.e. vice versa.
2. Perused the record.
Facts pertaining to Criminal Misc. Application No. 33009 of 2024 (Digambar Pandey and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another)-
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants-Digambar Pandey and 3 Others, who are charge sheeted accused with the following prayer;-
"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully Prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of the Court below and charge sheet dated 19.08.2023 in Case Crime No. 189-A of 2003, under Section 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Khukhundu, District-Deoria and cognizance order dated 31.10.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doeria on the basis of compromise.
It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present application, further proceeding of Case No. 1614 of 2013, State versus Digambar Pandey and Otehrs, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.-25, Deoria may kindly be stayed, and/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 25.05.2003, a delayed FIR dated 06.06.2003 was lodged by first informant-Shambhu Nath Pandey and was registered as Case Crime No. 189-A of 2003, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 352, 506 IPC, Police Station-Khukhundu, District-Deoria. In the aforesaid FIR, 8 persons namely (1) Digambar Pandey, (2) Prem Pandey, (3) Kesari, (4) Ranjan, (5) Anumod, (6) Devdharma, (7) Ved Prakash and (8) Ram Sakal were nominated as named accused. The wives of Ram Sakal Pandey, Prem and Digambar were also arraigned as accused.
5. After aforementioned FIR was registered, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. He, accordingly, examined the first informant and other witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of four persons alone is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 19.08.2003 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby, Digambar Pandey, Prem Nath Pandey, Kesari Pandey and Devdharma @ Dharma were charge sheeted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC.
6. Upon submission of aforementioned police report/charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same, vide Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and simultaneously, the charge sheeted accused were summoned. The said order was passed in Consequential Criminal Case No. 1588 of 2003 (State Vs. Digambar Pandey and Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, Police Station-Khukhundu, District-Deoria.
7. During pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at by the parties, a compromise was entered into by the parties. In view of the compromise so entered into by the parties, an application dated 28.06.2024 was jointly filed by the parties before Court below praying therein that the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case be terminated in view of the compromise entered into by the parties.
8. Learned counsel for applicants submits that in spite of the fact that a period of more than 3 and 1/2 months has rolled by from the date of application dated 28.06.2024, the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case have not yet been terminated by Court below. Consequently, applicants have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that since parties have entered into a compromise, the present application is liable to be allowed in the light of compromise entered into by the parties.
Facts pertaining to Criminal Misc. Application No. 32358 of 2024 (Shashikant Pandey and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another)-
9. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants-Shashikant Pandey and 3 Others, who are charge sheeted accused with the following prayer;-
"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully Prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of the Court below and charge sheet in Case Crime No. 189 of 2003, under Section 147, 323, 324, 352, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Khukhundu, District-Deoria as well as cognizance order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doeria on the basis of compromise.
It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present application, further proceeding of Case No. 1607 of 2013, State versus Shashikant Pandey and Others, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.-25, Deoria may kindly be stayed, and/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
10. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 25.05.2003, a delayed FIR dated 30.05.2003 was lodged by first informant-Prem Nath Pandey and was registered as Case Crime No. 189 of 2003, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352, 307 IPC, Police Station-Khukhundu, District-Deoria. In the aforesaid FIR, 10 persons namely (1) Karunakar Pandey, (2) Chandrakant Pandey, (3) Shashikant Pandey, (4) Paras Pandey, (5) Markandey Pandey, (6) Rajni Pandey, (7) Padmakar Pandey, (8) Bhaskar Pandey, (9) Dayashankar Pandey and (10) Manish Pandey were nominated as named accused.
11. After aforementioned FIR was registered, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. He, accordingly, examined the first informant and other witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only five persons is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 13.08.2003 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby, Shashikant Pandey, Rajnikant Pandey, Bhaskar Pandey, Dayashankar Pandey and Manish Pandey were charge sheeted under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352, 324 IPC.
12. Upon submission of aforementioned police report/charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same, vide Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and simultaneously, the charge sheeted accused were summoned. Aforesaid order was passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-19, Deoria in Case No. 1589 of 2003 (State Vs. Shashikant), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352, 324 IPC, Police Station-Khukhundu, District-Deoria.
13. Court concerned, vide framing of charge order dated 19.07.2024, framed charges against charge sheeted accused.
14. During pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at by the parties, a compromise was entered into by the parties. In view of the compromise so entered into by the parties, an application dated 28.06.2024 was jointly filed by the parties before Court below praying therein that the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case be terminated in view of the compromise entered into by the parties.
15. Learned counsel for applicants submits that in spite of the fact that a period of more than 3 and 1/2 months have rolled by from the date of application dated 28.06.2024, the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case have not yet been terminated by Court below in the light of the compromise entered into by the parties. It is lastly contended that cross cases have been lodged by both the parties. Both the parties have entered into compromise in the cross cases respectively. Consequently, applicants have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that since parties have entered into a compromise, the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court in the light of compromise entered into by the parties.
Facts pertaining to Criminal Misc. Application No. 34286 of 2024 (Digambar Pandey and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another)-
16. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants-Digambar Pandey and 3 Others, who are charge sheeted accused with the following prayer;-
"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully Prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of the court below and charge sheet dated 30.10.2005 in Case Crime No.100 of 2003, under section 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria and cognizance order dated 19.11.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria on the basis of compromise.
It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present application, further proceeding of Case No.1613 of 2013, State versus Digambar Pandey and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.25, Deoria may kindly be stayed, and/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
17. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 25.05.2003, an NCR report dated 25.05.2003 was registered.
18. After aforementioned NCR report was registered, an application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by first informant-opposite party-2 Shashikant Pandey, which was allowed by the jurisdictional Magistrate.
19. Pursuant to above, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. He, accordingly, examined the applicantfirst informant and other witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of four persons alone is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 30.10.2005 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby, Digambar Pandey, Prem Nath Pandey, Kesari Pandey and Dharma Pandey were charge sheeted under Sections 504, 506 IPC.
20. Upon submission of aforementioned police report/charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and simultaneously, the charge sheeted accused were summoned. The said order was passed in Consequential Criminal Case No. Nil of 2005 (State Vs. Digambar Pandey and Others), under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Khukhundu, District-Deoria. The same has now been re-registered as Case No. 1613 of 2013 (State Vs. Digambar Pandey and Others).
21. During pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at by the parties, a compromise was entered into by the parties. In view of the compromise so entered into by the parties, an application dated 28.06.2024 was jointly filed by the parties before Court below praying therein that the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case be terminated in view of the compromise entered into by the parties.
22. Learned counsel for applicants submits that in spite of the fact that a period of more than 3 and 1/2 months has rolled by from the date of application dated 28.06.2024, the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case have not yet been terminated by Court below. Consequently, applicants have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that since parties have entered into a compromise, the present application is liable to be allowed in the light of compromise entered into by the parties.
Facts pertaining to Criminal Misc. Application No. 32219 of 2024 (Rajnikant Pandey and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another)-
23. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants-Rajnikant Pandey and Dayashankar Pandey, who are charge sheeted accused with the following prayer;-
"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully Prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of court below and charge sheet dated 30.10.2005 in Case Crime No.99 of 2003, under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria as well as cognizance order dated 19.11.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria may kindly be quashed.
It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present application, further proceeding of Case No.1593 of 2013, State versus Rajnikant Pandey and others, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.25, Deoria may kindly be stayed, and/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
24. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 24.05.2003, a prompt FIR dated 24.05.2003 was lodged by first informant-opposite party-2 Prem Nath Pandey and was registered as Case Crime No. 99 of 2003, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Khukhundu, District-Deoria. In the aforesaid FIR, 4 persons namely (1) Chandrakant Pandey, (2) Rajnikant Pandey, (3) Bhaskar Pandey and (4) Dayashankar Pandey were nominated as named accused.
25. After aforementioned FIR was registered, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. He, accordingly, examined the first informant and other witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of three persons is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 30.10.2005 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby, three of the named accused i.e. Rajnikant Pandey, Bhaskar Pandey and Dayashankar Pandey were charge sheeted under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC.
26. Upon submission of aforementioned police report/charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same, vide Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 19.11.2005 passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and simultaneously, the charge sheeted accused were summoned.
27. During pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at by the parties, a compromise was entered into by the parties. In view of the compromise so entered into by the parties, an application dated 28.06.2024 was jointly filed by the parties before Court below praying therein that the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case be terminated in view of the compromise entered into by the parties.
28. Learned counsel for applicants submits that in spite of the fact that a period of more than 3 and 1/2 months had rolled by from the date of application dated 28.06.2024, the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case have not yet been terminated by Court below. Consequently, applicants have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that since parties have entered into a compromise, the present application is liable to be allowed in the light of compromise entered into by the parties.
29. Per contra, the learned Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the present applications. Learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the prohibition contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C., the jurisdictional Magistrate could not have terminated the proceedings of aforementioned criminal cases in the light of compromise entered into by the parties. As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in not passing any final order in the light of compromise entered into by the parties.
30. However, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 in respective applications submits that once the first informant/opposite party-2 has himself entered into a compromise with the accused-applicants, then in that eventuality he cannot have any grievance in case, the present applications are decided in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties.
31. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that parties have entered into a compromise, which has also been acted upon. The Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has now provided detailed guidelines regarding compromise, which can be entered into by the parties, even in criminal case. It is by now well settled that compromise can be entered into by the parties even in respect of cognizable and non compoundable offences but subject to certain exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court.
32. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 in respective applications and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.
33. Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.
34. First informant-opposite party-2 in all the applications stand represented by their respective counsels. Learned counsel for the parties pray for and are granted 4 weeks' time to file their respective counter affidavits.
35. Applicants will have 2 weeks thereafter to file their respective rejoinder affidavits.
36. List for admission 16.12.2024 along with connected matters before the appropriate Bench.
37. Since the compromise entered into by the parties has not yet been verified by Court below, therefore, the parties are directed to appear Court below on 18.11.2024. In case, the parties appear before Court below, on the above-mentioned date for verification of compromise then Court below shall proceed to verify the compromise so entered into by the parties in compliance of this order. In case, the compromise entered into by the parties stands verified, the Court concerned shall transmit the copy of the order, by which, compromise has been verified and further it's verification report qua the same to this Court before the next date fixed.
38. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute by means of a compromise, which has also been acted upon, as an interim measure, it is, hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, no coercive action shall be taken by Court below against applicants in respective criminal cases.
39. The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench.
40. Assignment, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 25.10.2024 Vinay