Allahabad High Court
Smt Shahin And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 January, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13968 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23169 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Shahin And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Virendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings, including including charge-sheet dated 25.10.2015 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2017, of Case No. 8716/2021 (Old Case No.516/2016) (State Vs. Waseem and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 22/2015, under Sections 498A/323/506/504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Meerganj, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-5, Bareilly, in terms of the compromise deed dated 05.12.2022.
3. On 22.08.2024, the following order was passed in the matter:-
"1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State are present.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 25.10.2015 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2017, of Case No. 8716/2021 (Old Case No.516/2016) (State Vs. Waseem and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 22/2015, under Sections 498A/323/506/504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Meerganj, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-5, Bareilly, in terms of the compromise between the parties.
4. It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has already been filed before the court concerned. It is contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. 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.
6. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure the presence of the parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on the next date fixed and thereafter the court concerned, shall 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 the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date.
7. Parties are directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.
8. List this case on 04.10.2024.
9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
4. In compliance of the order dated 22.08.2024, compromise verification report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated 27.01.2025. The letter of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.2, Bareilly dated 18.09.2024 has been placed on record along with order dated 12.09.2024 vide which compromise has been verified between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(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,
8. 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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, the proceedings, including including charge-sheet dated 25.10.2015 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2017, of Case No. 8716/2021 (Old Case No.516/2016) (State Vs. Waseem and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 22/2015, under Sections 498A/323/506/504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Meerganj, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-5, Bareilly, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Abhishek Singh