High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189432 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32741 of 2024 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Deepak Kapoor, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicants to quash proceedings of Case No. 36 of 2011, State v. Sandeep Kumar & others, arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hasayan, District Mahamaya Nagar (now Hathras), pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C. IInd, Hathras, in view of compromise entered into between the parties. 4. On 21.10.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Triloki Singh, learned AGA for the State, and perused the record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicants to quash proceedings of Case No. 36 of 2011, State v. Sandeep Kumar & others, arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hasayan, District Mahamaya Nagar (now Hathras), pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C. IInd, Hathras, in view of compromise entered into between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them. In this regard, an applicant and along with affidavit has been filed before the court concerned. Copy of said affidavit has been annexed as Annexure no. 4 to the affidavit, therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would be 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 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, parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order and permitted to file proper application and compromise deed within three weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of said 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 six weeks from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned 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. 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 03.12.2024, as fresh. 9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 5. In compliance of the order dated 21.10.2024, compromise has been verified between the parties by order dated 26.11.2024 by the Court concerned. Certified copy of the aforesaid order has been placed at page-11 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. 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 also accepts 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. 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, proceedings of Case No. 36 of 2011, State v. Sandeep Kumar & others, arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hasayan, District Mahamaya Nagar (now Hathras), pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C. IInd, Hathras, in view of compromise entered into between the parties, are hereby quashed. 12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 3.12.2024 Rahul.