Ranjot Singh v. Rubal Battra
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128883 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19195 of 2024 Applicant :- Rubal Battra @ Ravnit Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Padmaker Pandey,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
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) in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the proceedings of order dated 14.02.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Saharanpur as well as proceeding of Special Case No. 86 of 2017 Ranjot Singh Vs. Rubal Battra @ Ravneet Singh and others, under section 323, 364/511, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Saharanpur, are hereby quashed. 10. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Arti
Arguments
1. Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Saharanpur as well as proceeding of Special Case No. 86 of 2017 Ranjot Singh Vs. Rubal Battra @ Ravneet Singh and others, under section 323, 364/511, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Saharanpur on the basis of compromise dated 09.08.2023 as well as 15.03.2024 between the parties. 3. On 05.07.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 14.02.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Case No.86 of 2017 (Ranjot Singh vs. Rubal Battra @ Ravneet Singh and others), under Sections 323, 364/511, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Sadar Bazar pending in the court of Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur on the basis of compromise dated 09.08.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that 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 filed before the court concerned, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No.8 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. 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 one month 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. 7. 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. 8. Put up this case on 06.08.2024, as fresh, at 02:00 p.m. 9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, vide order dated 29.07.2024, the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties and their respective counsels, a certified copy of the aforesaid order has been placed before this Court by learned counsel for the applicants, which is taken on record. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise vide order dated 29.07.2024, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. 6. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: 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, 7. 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.