High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125570 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20109 of 2024 Applicant :- Ganesh Thakur Alias Pooran Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Prajapati,Anju Yadav,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant filed supplementary affidavit in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. Jay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Anil Kumar Prajapati, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Cognizance/Summoning order dated 25.06.2018 and Charge Sheet dated 16.03.2016 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Special Session Trial No.209 of 2018 (State vs. Ganesh Thakur and Others), arising out of the Case Crime No.02 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (Da) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Balabehat, District- Lalitpur and a further prayer to stay the entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid case, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur, in pursuance of compromise deed dated 06.05.2024. 4. On 04.07.2024, the following order was passed :- "1. Vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit filed today in the Court by Mr. Anil Kumar Prajapati, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Anil Kumar Prajapati, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the State. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 16.03.2016, cognizance/summoning order dated 25.06.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No.209 of 2018 (State Vs. Ganesh Thakur and others) arising out of the Case Crime No.02 of 2018 under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Balabehat, District- Lalitpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur in pursuance of compromise deed dated 06.05.2024. 4. 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 06.05.2024 has been annexed as Annexure no.5 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. 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. 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 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? The fact regarding the amount towards compensation as received and stated to be returned, shall also be verified. 8. 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. 9. Put up this case on 05.08.2024, as fresh, at 02:00 p.m. 10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 04.07.2024, the compromise verification report from learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Lalitput is placed on record as is evident from office report dated 03.08.2024. The letter dated 30.07.2024 alongwith the order dated 26.07.2024 and the compromise affidavit have been placed before this Court. The letter dated 30.07.2024 speaks about verification of the compromise which has been verified by learned Additional District and Session/Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Lalitput vide order dated 26.07.2024. In the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2024, it has been mentioned that the opposite party no.2 has returned the compensation amount as awarded to her. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits 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. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. 8. 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, 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the the Cognizance/Summoning order dated 25.06.2018 and Charge Sheet dated 16.03.2016 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Special Session Trial No.209 of 2018 (State vs. Ganesh Thakur and Others), arising out of the Case Crime No.02 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (Da) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Balabehat, District- Lalitpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed. 12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Kalp Nath Singh