High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178779 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34030 of 2024 Applicant :- Sushil Tiwari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Giri,Rajnish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Neelam Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Giri, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Neelam Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Deepak Kapoor, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 30.09.2022 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 12.07.2024 and the entire proceeding of the Case No. 539 of 2024 (State vs. Sushil Tiwari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0365 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District-Prayagraj, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Allahabad/Prayagraj, in terms of compromise entered between the parties. 3. On 15.10.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Ms. Neelam Pandey, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has filed vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 30.09.2022 and Cognizance/Summoning order dated 12.07.2024 and entire proceeding of the Case No.539/2024 (State vs. Sushil Tiwari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.0365 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Prayagraj passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.04 Allahabad as well as stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case, on the basis of compromise. 4. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the matter has been settled between the parties as the mutual divorce petition as filed has been decided on 17.08.2024 where the divorce decree has been passed and the permanent alimony amount has already been given to the opposite party. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the applicants before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the 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 A.G.A. for the State submits that it is the concerned court below, who has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the parties may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law. 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 a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file a proper compromise deed. 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 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? 8. Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. 9. Put up this case, as fresh, on 13.11.2024 , showing the name of Ms. Neelam Pandey as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2024, compromise verification report from Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Prayagraj, is kept on record as is evident from office report dated 12.11.2024. The letter of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Prayagraj has been placed on record along with order dated 29.10.2024, 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 30.09.2022 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 12.07.2024 and the entire proceeding of the Case No. 539 of 2024 (State vs. Sushil Tiwari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0365 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District-Prayagraj, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Allahabad/Prayagraj, in terms of compromise entered between the parties, are hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 13.11.2024 #Vik/-