State of U.P v. Amit Kumar Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143236 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24210 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Mishra @ Amit Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atharva Dixit,Aushim Luthra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Saxena,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. D.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 28.07.2022 as well as the summoning order dated 23.05.2024 in Special Session Trial No. 146 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Amit Kumar Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 401 of 2022, under sections 323, 504, 506, 374, 406, 342 IPC and Section 3(2)Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj, pending the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Prayagraj, on the basis of compromise. 3. On 05.08.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Counter affidavit alongwith vakalatnama filed by Mr. Amit Saxena, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 28.07.2022 as well as the summoning order dated 23.05.2024 in Special Session Trial No. 146 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Amit Kumar Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 401 of 2022, under sections 323, 504, 506, 374, 406, 342 IPC and Section 3(2)Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj, pending the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Prayagraj, on the basis of compromise. 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 Annexure No.5 to this application. He further submits that the compensation amount has already been returned. 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 the opposite party also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 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 3rd September 2024, as fresh showing the name of Mr. Amit Saxena as counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case." 4. In compliance of the order dated 05.08.2024, compromise verification report from learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) has been placed on record as is evident from office report dated 02.09.2024. The letter of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Prayagraj has been placed along with compromise deed, affidavit as well as order dated 14.08.2024 vide which compromise has been verified between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 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. 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 charge sheet dated 28.07.2022 as well as the summoning order dated 23.05.2024 in Special Session Trial No. 146 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Amit Kumar Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 401 of 2022, under sections 323, 504, 506, 374, 406, 342 IPC and Section 3(2)Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj, pending the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Prayagraj, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. In view of the order passed, the Police Commissioner, Prayagraj is directed to delete the details/records of this case from Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS). Order Date :- 3.9.2024 Rahul.