Allahabad High Court
Shailendra And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 February, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35633 of 2022 Applicant :- Shailendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. C.P. Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ram Ashish Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the Summoning Order dated 22.01.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in Case No. 62 of 2018 (State Vs. Shailendra) arising out of Case Crime No. 355 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323, 376/511, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Bharthana, District-Etawah, as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned case now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in view of compromise entered into by the parties.
4. Present application came up for admission on 08.12.2022 and this Court passed the following order:-
"1. Learned counsel for applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit in Court today, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Chandra Prakash Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ram Ashish, Advocate, who has put in appearance in connected criminal misc. anticipatory bail application No. 5630 of 2022 (Shailendra Vs. State of U.P.).
3. Perused the record.
4. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Etawah in Case No. 62 of 2018 (State Vs. Shailendra) arising out of Case Crime No. 355 of 2017 uinder Sections 452, 323, 376/511, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Bharthana, District-Etawah as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case now pending in the Court Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Etawah, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.
5. Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant submits that during the pendency of above mentioned case parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise deed 02.09.2022 was duly drawn. In view of above, an application dated 05.11.2022 was filed by accused/applicants before court below with the prayer that the compromise entered into by the parties may be taken on record.
6. Mr. Ram Ashish, Advocate, who has put in appearance in connected criminal misc. anticipatory bail application No. 5630 of 2022 (Shailendra Vs. State of U.P.) very fairly submits that an appropriate compromise application jointly signed by the parties shall be filed before court below.
7. Be that as it may, considering the fact that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute, liberty is granted to the parties to file compromise application before court below within two weeks from today. In case such a compromise application is filed before court below then the court concerned shall fix a date for verification of the compromise entered into by the parties in the presence of the parties and submit its report before this court with regard to verification of compromise so entered into by the parties on or before 15.02.2023.
8. Put up this case again as fresh on 15.02.2023 alongwith connected matter.
9. Till 15.02.2023, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.
Order Date :- 8.12.2022"
5. Subsequent to above order dated 08.12.2022 parties appeared before court below and filed a compromise application dated 23.12.2022. Court below by means of order dated 23.12.2022 has verified the compromise entered into by the parties. Documents pertaining to above, have been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicants in Court today.
6. Learned counsel for applicants submits 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 between the parties, a compromise application was filed before court below praying therein that the proceedings of aforementioned criminal case be terminated in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. The said compromise has been acted upon and verified by court below.
7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Once the parties have entered into a compromise, the chances of conviction of accused-applicants are not only remote but also bleak. The continuation of the proceedings will itself cause injustice to the parties. It is thus urged that this Court in exercise of it's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may itself quashed the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case instead of relegating the parties to court below.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. does not oppose the present application. He submits that once the first informant-opposite party 2 has herself compromised with accused-applicants then in that eventuality she cannot have any objection, in case, the present application is allowed.
9. Mr. Ram Ashish Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party 2 upon instructions submits that he has no objection, in case, the present application is allowed in terms prayed for. According to the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party 2 is the "Bhabhi" of applicant 1. He, therefore, submits that a purely family dispute has been dragged into criminal litigation.
10. Be that as it may, this Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:-
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 ii. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 iii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] iv. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705 vi. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vii. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 viii. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497 ix. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 x. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653 xi. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721 xii. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 xiii. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350 xiv. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 xv. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290 xvi. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench) xvii. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570 xviii. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 xix. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 xx. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 xxi. (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 xxii. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936.
xxiii. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions made by counsel for parties and the material on record, this court is of considered opinion that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Moreover, during pendency of present application, parties have already compromised their dispute. Compromise so entered into by parties has been acted upon and verified by Court below. As such, on date no difference exists between parties. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction of accused applicants is remote and bleak. As such no continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.
12. In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
13. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Case No. 62 of 2018 (State Vs. Shailendra) arising out of Case Crime No. 355 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323, 376/511, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Bharthana, District-Etawah now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah are, hereby, quashed.
14. Application is, accordingly, allowed.
15. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 28.2.2023 Vinay