Ramji Kori v. Rajpal and Others), pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128797 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20596 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajpal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tarun Jha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Vishwakarma,Ram Bahadur Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. List revised. None appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 to press this application even in the revised calling of the list.
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. 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 proceedings of Complaint Case No.1397 of 2021 (Ramji Kori vs. Rajpal and Others), pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Court Room No.2, District- Etawah, under Sections 323, 406, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)R.S. 3(2) (5a) (P.A.) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Etawah, are hereby quashed. 12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud. Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Arti
Arguments
2. Heard Mr. Tarun Jha, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1397 of 2021 (Ramji Kori vs. Rajpal and Others), pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Court Room No.2, District- Etawah, under Sections 323, 406, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)R.S. 3(2) (5a) (P.A.) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Etawah, on the basis of compromise. 4. On 05.07.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Mr. Ram Bahadur Kushwaha and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Vishwakarma, Advocates have filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Tarun Jha, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ram Bahadur Kushwaha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Ms. Kirti Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1397 of 2021 (Ramji Kori vs. Rajpal and Others), pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Court Room No.2, District- Etawah, under Sections 323, 406, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)R.S. 3(2) (5a) (P.A.) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Etawah, on the basis of compromise. 4. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have settled their dispute out of court amicably and a photocopy of the compromise deed has been seen by Ms. Kirti Singh, learned AGA for the State. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the 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 counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 6. Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, who has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the parties may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law. 7. 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. 8. 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, after hearing the informant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statements 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. 9. 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. 10. Put up this case on 06.08.2024, as fresh, at 02:00p.m showing the name of showing the name of Mr. Ram Bahadur Kushwaha as well as Mr. Pankaj Kumar Vishwakarma as learned counsels for opposite party no.2. 11. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the report regarding verification of compromise received from learned Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etawah, as is evident from the office report dated 06.08.2024. A letter of Special Judge (SC/ST) (P.A.) Act Etawah dated 05.08.2024 has been placed on record along with copy of order dated 23.07.2024 vide which the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties and their respective counsels. 6. A report from District Social Welfare Officer, Etawah dated 05.08.2024 shows that no compensation has been given to opposite party no. 2. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order dated 23.07.2024, he has 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: 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, 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.