State of U.P v. Umakant Pathak and others), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136244 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26534 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Umakant Pathak And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Chauhan,Shriyansh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Kamleshwar Singh, learned counsel for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.10706 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Umakant Pathak and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Biwar, District Hamirpur, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Hamirpur, on the basis of compromise. 3. Earlier Application U/S 482 No. 6082 of 2024 was filed by the applicants in which the following order was passed on 01.05.2024:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Kavita Aman, counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 147 of 2023 dated 14.7.2023 filed in Case Crime No. 135 of 2023, under sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., P.S. Biwar, District Hamirpur as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 13.9.2023 passed by learned ACJM, Hamirpur in Criminal Case No. 10706 of 2023 (State of U.P. vs. Umakant Pathak and others) and entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and the opposite party no.2 have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed dated 21.12.2023 has been annexed as Annexure 7 to this 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. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. 5. Learned A.G.A., 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 applicants 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 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 the 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 applicants 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 applicants 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, the concerned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate has verified the compromise vide order dated 12.06.2024. Certified copy of the aforesaid compromise verification order dated 12.06.2024 has been annexed on page-70 of the application. 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 also accept 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 proceedings of the Criminal Case No.10706 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Umakant Pathak and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Biwar, District Hamirpur, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Hamirpur, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 23.8.2024 Abhishek Singh