High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128680 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21085 of 2024 Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Panda @ Krishna And Aother Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohitosh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
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 summoning order dated 14.08.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Special SC/ST Act, Kaushambi as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 232 of 2018 (State Vs. Krishna Kumar Panda @ Krishna and another) Charge sheet dated 02.04.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 111 of 2018, under section 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V 'Ka'/3(1) Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi, are hereby quashed. 12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. It is directed that in case the compensation amount is not returned by the opposite party no.2, the concerned District Magistrate is directed to proceed against the opposite party no.2 in accordance with law. 14. Registrar Compliance as well as learned Government Advocate shall look into compliance of this order. 15. Ms. Kirti Singh, learned AGA shall inform about this order to learned Government Advocate. 16. 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. Mohitosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite no. 2 and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of impugned summoning order dated 14.08.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Special SC/ST Act, Kaushambi as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 232 of 2018 (State Vs. Krishna Kumar Panda @ Krishna and another) Charge sheet dated 02.04.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 111 of 2018, under section 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V 'Ka'/3(1) Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi on the basis of compromise. 4. On 05.07.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Mohitosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C., application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of impugned summoning order dated 14.08.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Special SC/ST Act, Kaushambi as well as entire proceeding of Case No.232 of 2018 (State vs. Krishna Kumar Panda @ Krishna and another), charge sheet dated 02.04.2018, arising out of Case Crime No.111 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)V'Ka'/3(1)Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station- Saini, District-Kaushambi, on the basis of compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them out of Court. 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 Mr. Vinay Kumar as learned counsel for the 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 Act, Kaushambi as is evident from the office report dated 05.08.2024. A letter of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Kaushambi dated 05.08.2024 has been placed on record along with compromise deed as well as copy of order dated 03.08.2024 vide which the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties and their respective counsels. Certified copy of the order dated 03.08.2024 has been annexed at page 10 to the affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- as received by opposite party no. 2 will be returned within a week. 7. 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 and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order dated 03.08.2024, 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: 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.