High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:139896 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22565 of 2024 Applicant :- Haneef Khan And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has filed vakalatnama in the Court today which is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. D.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.4139 of 2023 (State vs. Haneef Khan and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.141 of 2023, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station- Bithari-Chainpur, District- Bareilly as well as Summoning/Cognizance order dated 29.08.2023 passed by A.C.J.M./J.S.C.C., Bareilly stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case, pending in the court of C.J.M. Bareilly, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 4. On 01.08.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. 2. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.08.2023 passed by A.C.J.M./J.S.C.C., Bareilly and the entire proceeding of Case No.4139 of 2023 (State vs. Haneef Khan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.141 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Bithari Chainpur, District-Bareilly, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Bareilly, on the basis of compromise. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them. The compromise deed dated 05.01.2024 has been moved before the Court concerned mentioning therein that they have entered into compromise and they do not want to press the case, copy of the said compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-4 to this application. 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. 4. Learned AGA for the State does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 5. 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. 6. 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 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. 7. Upon due verification of compromise, the Court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. 8. Put up this case on 30.08.2024, as fresh. 9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 01.08.2024, a letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly dated 22.08.2024 has been placed on record alongwith order dated 22.08.2024 as is evident form office report dated 29.08.2024. Order dated 22.08.2024 shows that the aforesaid compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties. 6. 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. 7. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the 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, 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: (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, 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. 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. 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 entire proceeding of Case No.4139 of 2023 (State vs. Haneef Khan and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.141 of 2023, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station- Bithari-Chainpur, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of C.J.M. Bareilly as well as Summoning/Cognizance order dated 29.08.2023 passed by A.C.J.M./J.S.C.C., Bareilly, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed. 12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 30.8.2024 Kalp Nath Singh