Allahabad High Court
Pankaj And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 August, 2022
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27190 of 2021 Applicant :- Pankaj And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Wahid Jamal Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Wahid Jamal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 07.07.2018, in Case Crime No.0224 of 2018, in Special Case No.3340 of 2018 (State Vs. Pankaj and others), under sections 354-A, 504, IPC, and section 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Narsena, District Bulandshahr, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.3, Bulandshahr.
On 29.03.2022, the following order was passed:-
"1. Sri Wahid Jamal, learned counsel is present and submits that he is appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and wants to file his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
2. Sri Wahid Jamal, learned counsel, is directed to file his vakalatname in the registry of this Court.
3. Heard Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Wahid Jamal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
4. This criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 07.07.2018, in Case Crime No.0224 of 2018, in Special Case No.3340 of 2018 (State Vs. Pankaj and others), under sections 354-A, 504, IPC, and section 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Narsena, District Bulandshahr, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.3, Bulandshahr.
5. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that parties have settled the matter amicably and have entered into a compromise, which is annexure no.3 to the application. The same has already been filed before the trial court. Learned counsel for the parties prays that compromise be verified and matter be disposed of accordingly.
6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that parties shall appear before the trial court within two weeks from today and the trial court after verifying the compromise on the same date, will submit the verification report to this Court before the next date of listing. Parties may also obtain the copy of compromise verification report and field in this Court by the next date of listing.
7. As prayed, put up this case on 29.04.2022 as fresh.
8. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 29.03.2022, the parties have appeared before the court concerned alongwith their counsel and the compromise, so filed, has been verified by order dated 12.04.2022, certified copy of the said order dated 12.04.2022 has been annexed as Annexure no.S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, 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. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
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.
Accordingly, the impugned charge sheet dated 07.07.2018, in Case Crime No.0224 of 2018, in Special Case No.3340 of 2018 (State Vs. Pankaj and others), under sections 354-A, 504, IPC, and section 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Narsena, District Bulandshahr, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.3, Bulandshahr is hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 3.8.2022 Jitendra/-