State v. Rajnish Kumar Yadav and others) arising out of Charge
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176200 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29534 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajnish Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rohit Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rohit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 05.04.2022 as well as entire proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 1614 of 2022 (State Versus Rajnish Kumar Yadav and others), arising out of Charge-sheet dated 05.04.2022, submitted in Case Crime No.991 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Baradari, District-Bareilly and also the impugned cognizance order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bareilly, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 3. On 19.09.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Short counter affidavit filed along with Vakalatnama by Sri Rohit Kumar Mishra, on behalf of opposite party no.2, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 3. Applicants have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 1614 of 2022 (State Versus Rajnish Kumar Yadav and others) arising out of Charge-sheet dated 05.04.2022, submitted in Case Crime No.991 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Baradari, District-Bareilly and also the impugned cognizance order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bareilly, so that justice may be done. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1614 of 2022 (State Versus Rajnish Kumar Yadav and others) arising out of Charge-sheet dated 05.04.2022, submitted in Case Crime No.991 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Baradari, District-Bareilly, during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court, so that justice be done." 4. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties have settled their dispute out of Court on the basis of compromise. They have drawn the attention of this Court towards compromise deed dated 10.06.2024 in which it is stated that by amicable settlement both the parties want to resolve the aforesaid dispute. It is next submitted that the entire proceedings be dropped in light of the compromise deed filed by the parties. It is further submitted that the parties are also ready to appear before the court concerned for verification of compromise. 5. Learned AGA is having no objection, if any, such direction is given to the court concerned for verification of compromise executed between the parties. 6. As both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise has also been arrived between them, therefore, it is directed that both the parties shall appear before the court concerned within ten days and shall file an application along with the certified copy of this order for verification of compromise, entered between them. 7. If any such application is moved, then the court concerned shall verify the compromise, in accordance with law, and shall pass a reasoned order accepting or rejecting of compromise, in accordance with law and transmit verification report to this Court. 8. List as fresh before appropriate Bench on 15.10.2024, showing the name of Sri Rohit Kumar Mishra as counsel for the opposite party no.2. 9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 10. Office is directed to submit a report on the next date fixed in respect of verification report, if any, forwarded by the court concerned." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 19.09.2024, compromise verification report from A.C.J.M., Court No.1 Bareilly is kept on record as is evident from office report dated 04.11.2024. The letter of concerned Magistrate dated 31.10.2024 has been placed on record along with order dated 08.10.2024 vide which compromise has been verified. 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 charge sheet dated 05.04.2022 as well as Criminal Case No. 1614 of 2022 (State Versus Rajnish Kumar Yadav and others), arising out of Charge-sheet dated 05.04.2022, submitted in Case Crime No.991 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Baradari, District-Bareilly and also the impugned cognizance order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bareilly, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Rahul.