High Court

1. Sri Satya Man Singh, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant/opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1123 of 2013 (State Vs. Imtiyaz Khan @ Guddu @ Imtiyaz), arising out of Case Crime No. 0371 of 2012, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Meja, District- Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Prayagraj in pursuance of compromise dated 11.07.2024 made between the opposite party no.2 and applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 482 application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.09.2024 has passed the following order:- "1. Heard Mr. Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1123 of 2013 (State vs. Imtiyaz Khan @ Guddu @ Imtiyaz), arising out of Case Crime No.0371/2012, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, P.S.-Meja, District-Prayagraj, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Prayagraj on the basis of compromise dated 11.07.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, a compromise affidavit of both the parties has been filed before the court concerned, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No.3 of this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would 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.

4. 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.

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, 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 15.10.2024, as fresh.

9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."

5. In pursuance of order of this Court dated 04.09.2024, parties appeared before the Trial Court and the Trial court vide order dated 20.09.2024 verified the parties as well as as the contents of the compromise application. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Prayagraj vide its letter dated 25.09.2024 has transmitted the verification report dated 20.09.2024 to this Court, which is available on record. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

7. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble 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 learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

10. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1123 of 2013 (State Vs. Imtiyaz Khan @ Guddu @ Imtiyaz), arising out of Case Crime No. 0371 of 2012, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Meja, District- Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Prayagraj, are hereby quashed.

11. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Aditya

1. Sri Satya Man Singh, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant/opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1123 of 2013 (State Vs. Imtiyaz Khan @ Guddu @ Imtiyaz), arising out of Case Crime No. 0371 of 2012, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Meja, District- Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Prayagraj in pursuance of compromise dated 11.07.2024 made between the opposite party no.2 and applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 482 application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.09.2024 has passed the following order:- "1. Heard Mr. Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1123 of 2013 (State vs. Imtiyaz Khan @ Guddu @ Imtiyaz), arising out of Case Crime No.0371/2012, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, P.S.-Meja, District-Prayagraj, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Prayagraj on the basis of compromise dated 11.07.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. In this regard, a compromise affidavit of both the parties has been filed before the court concerned, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No.3 of this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would 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.

4. 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.

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, 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 15.10.2024, as fresh.

9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."

5. In pursuance of order of this Court dated 04.09.2024, parties appeared before the Trial Court and the Trial court vide order dated 20.09.2024 verified the parties as well as as the contents of the compromise application. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Prayagraj vide its letter dated 25.09.2024 has transmitted the verification report dated 20.09.2024 to this Court, which is available on record. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

7. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble 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 learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

10. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1123 of 2013 (State Vs. Imtiyaz Khan @ Guddu @ Imtiyaz), arising out of Case Crime No. 0371 of 2012, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Meja, District- Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Prayagraj, are hereby quashed.

11. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Aditya