Smt. Ramrati v. Brigbhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:159033 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20084 of 2024 Applicant :- Dr. Mahesh Chaubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.05.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of S. C. No.472 of 2024 (Smt. Ramrati vs. Brigbhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.77 of 2023, under Sections 392 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District- Lalitpur, pending before the court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur on the basis of compromise. 3. Earlier on 28.08.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Heard Sri Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned AGA for the State, and perused the record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 30.05.2024 as well as entire criminal proceedings of S.C. No. 472/2024 (Smt. Ramrati v. Brigbhan and others) arising out of Misc. Case No. 77 of 2023 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur, under Section 392 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur in pursuance of the affidavit dated 01.06.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and to that effect an affidavit / compromise has been filed by opposite party no. 2 before the court of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Dacoity Act), Lalitpur. Copy of said affidavit has been annexed as Annexure no. 6 to the affidavit, therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would be 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 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 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, parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of affidavit/compromise deed and 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 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, 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 26.09.2024, as fresh. 9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. " 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 28.08.2024. A letter of the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur dated 19.09.2024 has been placed alongwith compromise deed as well as copy of order dated 11.09.2024 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 cognizance/summoning order dated 30.05.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of S. C. No.472 of 2024 (Smt. Ramrati vs. Brigbhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.77 of 2023, under Sections 392 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District-Lalitpur, pending before the court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur 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 :- 26.9.2024 Jitendra/-