High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126763 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22257 of 2024 Applicant :- Nisar Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sadaful Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Sadaful Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. D.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the Charge Sheet dated 31.12.2016 as well as Cognizance order dated 31.01.2018, under Sections 323, 504, 325 & 307 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No.440/2016 registered at Police Station- Jani, District- Meerut, alongwith the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.129/2018 (State vs. Nisar Alam), under Sections 323, 504, 325 & 307 I.P.C., arising out of the aforesaid case crime number and a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Meerut, on the basis of compromise. 3. Earlier the applicant approached this Court by filing an Application U/S 482 No. - 4652 of 2024 (Nisar Alam), wherein on 01.05.2024 the following order was passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri T.A. Khan, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 31.12.2016 as well as the cognizance order dated 31.01.2018 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 129 of 2018 (State vs. Nisar Alam), arising out of Case Crime No. 440 of 2016, under Sections 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Jani, District- Meerut, pursuant to compromise deed dated 19.09.2022. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the the matter arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2. In the alleged incident, the opposite party no. 2/informant received injuries. The injuries sustained by the injured are on not vital part of the body and are not serious in nature. Further, during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 19.09.2022 has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the trial court and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that he has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. 5. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the trial court, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicant may approach the trial court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law. 6. In view of above, the parties, including the injured, are directed to appear before the trial court along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. It is expected that trial Court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the trial 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. 7. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. 8. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the trial court, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
Decision
9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. - 4652 of 2024 (Nisar Alam), the concerned Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Meerut has verified the compromise vide order dated 07.06.2024. Certified copy of the aforesaid compromise verification order dated 07.06.2024 has been annexed on page- 34 of the application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute is an offshoot of matrimonial dispute between the parties wherein they have entered into compromise. He further submits that the parties have lodged several cases against each other and the same have been quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise, the orders of the same have been annexed from page no.65 to page no.72. He also contends 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State also accepts that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. 7. 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, 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 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. 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 Charge Sheet dated 31.12.2016 as well as Cognizance order dated 31.01.2018, under Sections 323, 504, 325 & 307 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No.440/2016 registered at Police Station- Jani, District- Meerut, alongwith the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.129/2018 (State vs. Nisar Alam), under Sections 323, 504, 325 & 307 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No.440/2016 registered at Police Station- Jani, District- Meerut, pending before learned Additonal District and Sessions judge, Court No.1, Meerut, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Kalp Nath Singh