High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136314 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21871 of 2024 Applicant :- Aftab Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vidya Sagar Dwivedi,G.A.,Mayank Chaturvedi Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Mr. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mayank Chaturvedi, for the opposite party no. 2 and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the State, are present. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 16.04.2024 and charge sheet dated 23.11.2023 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 110 of 2024, Case Crime No. 382 of 2023, u/s 294, 504 IPC and 9F/10 POCSO Act readwith Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)5Ka of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sidhari, District Azamgarh, pending before the court Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh. 3. On 23.07.2024 the following order was passed:- "1. Mr. Mayank Chaturvedi and Mr. Vidya Sagar Dwivedi, learned counsels for opposite party no.2 have filed short counter affidavit alongwith vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mayank Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.04.2024 and Charge Sheet dated 23.11.2023 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Special Session Trial No.110 of 2024, Case Crime No.382 of 2023, under Sections 294, 504 I.P.C. and Section 9F/10 POCSO Act readwith Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)5Ka of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sidhari, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh and a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case, in pursuance of compromise deed dated 15.07.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. The copy of the said compromise/mutual deed, filed before the court below, is annexed as SCA No.1 of the Short Counter Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicant would be a 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 do not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has admitted the aforesaid fact is his short counter affidavit. 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 two 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, after hearing the informant, 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, 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. 8. 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. 9. Put up this case, as fresh on 22nd August, 2024 at 2:00 PM showing the name of Mr. Mayank Trivedi and Mr. Vidyasagar as learned counsels for the opposite party. 10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the report regarding verification of compromise received from learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 21.08.2024. A letter of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh dated 21.08.2024 has been placed on record along with affidavits as well as certified copy of order dated 03.08.2024 vide which the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties and their respective counsels. In the aforesaid order it has also be mentioned that the opposite party no. 2 has not received any compensation from the State Government. 5. 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. 6. 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, 7. 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) in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 110 of 2024, Case Crime No. 382 of 2023, u/s 294, 504 IPC and 9F/10 POCSO Act readwith Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)5Ka of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sidhari, District Azamgarh, pending before the court Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh. v, are hereby quashed. 10. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 22.8.2024 Nisha