High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:140391 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19096 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
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, entire proceedings of Special Case No. 294 of 2021, State v. Ravi, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(द)(ध) SC/ST Act, Police Station Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, pending in the court of Incharge Additional Sessions Judge/ Rape and POCSO)/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shamli at Kairana, impugned charge sheet no. 1 of 2020 dated 2.7.2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 82 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(द)(ध) SC/ST Act, Police Station Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, are hereby quashed.
Arguments
Applicant :- Ravi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shubham Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Kirti Singh, learned AGA for the State, Sri Shubham Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Case No. 294 of 2021, State v. Ravi, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(द)(ध) SC/ST Act, Police Station Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, pending in the court of Incharge Additional Sessions Judge/ Rape and POCSO)/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shamli at Kairana, impugned charge sheet no. 1 of 2020 dated 2.7.2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 82 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(द)(ध) SC/ST Act, Police Station Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, in terms of compromise dated 09.05.2024. 3. Earlier, following order was passed by this Court: "1. Supplementary affidavit and short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant and opposite party no.2 respectively, today in the Court, are taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. 2. Heard Mr. Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Shubham Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned AGA for the State. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.1 of 2020 dated 02.07.2021 and bailable warrant dated 24.08.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Case No.294 of 2021 (State vs. Ravi), arising out of Case Crime No.82 of 2021, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(?)(?) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Adarsh Mandi, District-Shamli, pending before the court of Incharge Additional Session Judge (Rape and POCSO Act)/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shamli at Kairana. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially the applicant approached before this Court by means of filing Criminal Appeal No.7400 of 2022 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2022 dismissed the appeal on merits, however, liberty was given to the applicant to move discharge application before the concerned court at appropriate stage. In the meantime, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, a compromise affidavit of both the parties has been annexed as annexure no.7 of this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be abuse of 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 AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the informant dose not want to press the case. 6. 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. 7. 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 two weeks 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, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement 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. 8. Upon due verification of compromise as well as compensation amount, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. 9. Put up this case on 22.08.2024, as fresh, at 02:00 p.m., showing the name of Mr. Shubham Srivastava as counsel for the opposite party no.2. 10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise between the parties has been verified vide order dated 17.08.2024, which has been placed on record along with the report received from Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shamli dated 17.08.2024, as is evident from the office report dated 21.08.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the compensation amount has already been deposited by the opposite party no. 2 and an application in this regard has been placed before the District Social Welfare Officer, a copy of which has been placed on record. 6. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 do 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, and 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
Decision
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. It is directed that in case the compensation amount is not returned by the opposite party no.2, the concerned District Magistrate, Shamli is directed to proceed against the opposite party no.2 in accordance with law. 13. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud. 14. Registrar (Compliance) shall communicate this order to the District Magistrate, Shamli. Order Date :- 30.8.2024 DS