State v. Mahendra and Others), under Sections
Case Details
Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22499 of 2024 Applicant :- Mahendra And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sarvagya Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 15.12.2023, charge-sheet dated 28.10.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.1792/2023, in Case Crime No.459/2023 (State vs. Mahendra and Others), under Sections 147, 148, 323, 354A, 354B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Sections 3(1) ?, 3 (1) ?, 3 (2) (va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kathgar, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.1, Moradabad, in pursuance of compromise deed dated 03.02.2024 and a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. On 16.07.2024, the following order was passed:-
Legal Reasoning
"1. Mr. Vikas Niranjan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajendra Singh, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vikas Niranjan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 15.12.2023, charge-sheet dated 28.10.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.1792/2023, in Case Crime No.459/2023 (State vs. Mahendra and Others), under Sections 147, 148, 323, 354A, 354B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Sections 3(1) ?, 3 (1) ?, 3 (2) (va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kathgar, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.1, Moradabad, in pursuance of compromise deed dated 03.02.2024 and a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 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. The copy of the said compromise/mutual deed, filed before the court below, is annexed as Annexure No.11 to this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants 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 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 period of two weeks 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 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 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 on 16th August, 2024, as fresh, at 02:00 p.m showing the name of Mr. Rajendra Singh as learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2024, report from Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.1, Moradabad has been placed on record as is evident from office report dated 16.08.2024. The letter of Special Judge, Moradabad dated 14.08.2024 is placed along with compromise deed as well as statements of the parties and the order dated 08.08.2024 vide which compromise has been verified. The letter of District Social Welfare Officer, Moradabad, dated 13.08.2024 has been placed on record wherein it has been mentioned that compensation amount has not been received by the victim. Statement of victim as placed along with letter of Special Judge, Moradabad, also mentions about no compensation amount being received by her. 5. 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. 6. 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. 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 proceedings of summoning order dated 15.12.2023, charge-sheet dated 28.10.2023 as well as Case No.1792/2023, in Case Crime No.459/2023 (State vs. Mahendra and Others), under Sections 147, 148, 323, 354A, 354B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Sections 3(1) ?, 3 (1) ?, 3 (2) (va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kathgar, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.1, Moradabad, in pursuance of compromise deed dated 03.02.2024 and a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 18.9.2024 Rahul.