Sri Prakash v. Govindi and others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:127361 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4906 of 2024 Applicant :- Govindi And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya,Ram Raj Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhagyawati Verma,G.A.,Rama Kant Gupta Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rama Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 02.12.2023 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No. 56 of 2023 (Sri Prakash Vs. Govindi and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da) (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Nadigaon, District-Jalaun at Orai, on the basis of compromise. 3. Earlier on 08.07.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. In view of the order passed in amendment application wherein section 392 IPC has been deleted in the proceedings pending before Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun, the matter is being sent for verification. 2. Heard Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ram Raj Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rama Kant Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 02.12.2023 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No. 56 of 2023 (Sri Prakash Vs. Govindi and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1) (da) (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Nadigaon, District-Jalaun at Orai, on the basis of compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them out of Court. In this regard, an affidavit on behalf of both the parties has been moved before the Court concerned mentioning therein that they have entered into compromise and they do not want to press the case, copy of said affidavit has been annexed to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 6. Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the parties may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law. 7. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. 8. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order within one week from today and be permitted to file a proper compromise deed. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, after hearing the informant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? The facts regarding the amount towards compensation as received and stated to be returned, shall also be verified. 9. If the said compromise as well as compensation 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. 10. Put up this case on 06.08.2024, as fresh, at 02:00 p.m. 11. Interim order, granted earlier vide order dated 08.04.2024, shall continue till the next date of listing. " 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 05.08.2024. A letter of Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai dated 30.07.2024 has been placed alongwith certified copy of order dated 24.07.2024 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels. 5. 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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. 7. 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, 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. 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 summoning order dated 02.12.2023 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No. 56 of 2023 (Sri Prakash Vs. Govindi and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da) (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Nadigaon, District-Jalaun at Orai is hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Jitendra/-