Allahabad High Court
Rahul And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 February, 2021
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3610 of 2021 Applicant :- Rahul And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the cognizance order dated 26.10.2018 and charge sheet dated 05.05.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 2484 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 95 of 2018 (State Vs. Rahul and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 326-B I.P.C., Police Station Mundali, District - Meerut, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut.
This is the second application which has been filed in the changed circumstances. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that earlier applicants had approached this Court by means of application U/s 482 No. 45098 of 2018 in which following order was passed on 03.12.2020:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants, is taken on record.
Supplementary counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 is also taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet No.01 of 2018 dated 05.05.2018 arising out of Case Crime No.95 of 2018 (State vs. Rahul and others) and proceeding of Criminal Case No.25857 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 323, 506, 326-B, I.P.C., Police Station Mundali, District Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut.
The present FIR has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 Smt.Aparna w/o Sri Rahul, on whose information proceeding has been initiated against the applicants. Now Smt.Aparna w/o Sri Rahul does not want to pursue the prosecution and would have no objection in case this Court in its discretion and in order to secure ends of justice finds it fit to quash the impugned chargesheet.
Learned counsel for the applicants by way of supplementary affidavit has filed compromise deed as parties have made compromise out of court settlement. The applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are now ready to get the present matter be decided on the basis of their Compromise dated 24.08.2020. There is nothing remains as any dispute between applicant no.1 Rahul and opposite party no.2 Smt.Aparna after compromise dated 24.08.2020.
It is submitted that no compromise application has yet been filed before the concerned court below, where criminal proceeding is pending against the applicants and requested to allow the applicants to move compromise application before the concerned court below.
Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, as such said compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file compromise application before the trial court on 17.12.2020 where the proceeding is going on.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case such compromise application is filed by the applicants before it within aforesaid period, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
In compliance of the order dated 03.12.2020, parties filed a compromise before the court concerned/trial court and the trial court by order dated 01.01.2021 (Annexure 16 of this application) has verified the compromise after ensuring the presence of the parties and recording the finding that the parties have accepted the terms and conditions of the compromise.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has filed a counter affidavit accepting the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
(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 Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the 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. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been expatiated in detail.
From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case regarding the compromise entered into between the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 2484 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 95 of 2018 (State Vs. Rahul and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 326-B I.P.C., Police Station Mundali, District - Meerut, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut, is hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.2.2021 Priya