Allahabad High Court
Munna @ Roshan Chunna Khan And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 28 July, 2023
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:151993 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10051 of 2023 Applicant :- Munna @ Roshan Chunna Khan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Varun Dev Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ayank Mishra Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Shiv Karan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ayank Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
Case was heard on 27.3.2023, Court has passed the following order:-
"Heard Mr. V.D. Sharma, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that he be permitted to amend the prayer clause of this application by seeking a challenge to the entire proceedings of Case No. 2877 of 2013 (State Vs. Vs. Munna and Others), under sections 325, 323 IPC, Police Station- Maudarwaja District- Farrukhabad as due to inadvertence, aforesaid prayer could not be made in the prayer clause of this application.
Prayer made by learned counsel for applicant is bonafide. Same is not opposed by learned A.G.A.
It is accordingly allowed.
Let necessary amendment in the prayer clause of this application be carried out by learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 18.10.2021, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Case No. 2877 of 2013 (State Vs. Vs. Munna and Others), under sections 325, 323 IPC, Police Station- Maudarwaja District- Farrukhabad whereby non bailable warrants have been issued against applicant as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid case in view of the compromise entered into by the parties.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that during pendency of aforesaid criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise application was filed before Court below. The certified copy of the same is on record as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. However, no order was passed by Court below in the light of above. As such, applicants who are charge sheeted accused have now approached this court by means of present application.
It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at by the parties, a compromise application has been filed before court below. Once the parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. The chances of conviction of accused applicants are now not only bleak but also remote. According to the learned counsel for applicants, in view of the compromise entered into by the parties the continuation of the proceeding will itself cause injustice to the parties Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
List for admission on 8.5.2023.
Learned counsel for applicant undertake to ensure the presence of the respective parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 17.4.2023. Court concerned shall thereafter ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and sent to this Court by the next date.
Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.
In view of the fact that parties have entered into a compromise and the Court below has been directed to verify the compromise, as an interim measure it is provided that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No. 2877 of 2013 (State Vs. Vs. Munna and Others), under sections 325, 323 IPC, Police Station- Maudarwaja District- Farrukhabad, now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad."
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.3.2023, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad has submitted its report on 6.7.2023 verifying the compromise deed entered between the parties.
Sri Shiv Karan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ayank Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. has supported the case of applicant and also submitted that in case aforesaid proceeding is quashed, he would have no objection.
In view of above, the applicants and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi) Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the judgement of the Apex Court reported in J.T. 2008(() SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another), as well as judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab) and reported in (2014) Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another), the proceedings of Case No. 2877 of 2013 (State Vs. Vs. Munna and Others), under sections 325, 323 IPC, Police Station- Maudarwaja District- Farrukhabad is hereby quashed.
The present application is, accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.7.2023 Junaid