High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136532 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19376 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra Bahadur Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi,R P Rajan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. R.P. Rajan, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Satyajeet Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned Charge Sheet dated 15.05.2016, impugned order dated 12.08.2016 and entire proceeding of Special Trial No.63 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.57 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 325 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(10) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Mirzamurad, District- Varanasi as well as stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case, pending in the court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Varanasi in pursuance of compromise dated 20.04.2024. 3. On 01.07.2024, the following order was passed :- " 1. Heard Mr. R P Rajan, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Satya Jeet Singh Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 15.05.2016 and impugned order dated 12.08.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Trial No. 63 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.57 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 325 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mirzamurad, District-Varanasi, pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi in pursuance of compromise deed dated 20.04.2024. 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, certified copy of the compromise/mutual deed dated 20.04.2024 has been annexed as Annexure no.8 to 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 a week 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? 7. 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. 8. Put up this case on 30.07.2024, 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 for compromise verification dated 01.07.2024, a letter of the concerned Court of learned Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act), Varanasi dated 30.07.2024 has been placed on record alongwith the compromise deed mentioning therein that the comprise has been verified in the presence of parties vide order dated 23.07.2024 as is evident form office report dated 13.08.2024. 5. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the opposite party no.2 is ready to return the compensation amount of Rs.22,000/- as received by him. Learned counsels for the parties submit 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 A.G.A. for the State also accepts that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, he has 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 the impugned Charge Sheet dated 15.05.2016, impugned order dated 12.08.2016 and entire proceeding of Special Trial No.63 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.57 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 325 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(10) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Mirzamurad, District- Varanasi, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. However, it is directed that in case the compensation amount is not returned by the opposite party no.2, the District Magistrate, Varanasi is directed to take appropriate action to recover the same, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 27.8.2024/Kalp Nath Singh