Babli Ahmad v. Rizwan). under section
Case Details
Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37529 of 2024 Applicant :- Rizwan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Darwari Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Darwari Lal, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shayam Babu Patel, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the first informant opposite party-2 by filing his short counter affidavit alongwith Vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant- Rizwan, who has been summoned by Court below has 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 graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned summoning order dated 10.09.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.- 1). District Bareilly as well as Non Bailable Warrant (N.B.W.) dated 04.06.2024 to 12.08.2024 Issued by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.-2), District Bareilly in Complaint Case no. 191/2018 (Babli Ahmad Vs. Rizwan). under section 406, 506 I.P.C., against the applicant, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly, Pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.-2) District Bareilly. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay/quash the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case no. 191/2018 (Babli Ahmad Vs. Rizwan), under section 406, 506 I.P.C., against the applicant, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District- Bareilly, Pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.-2) District Bareilly, during the pendency of the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble court, and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, Otherwise the Applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that during pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. On the basis of compromise entered into by the parties,l the complainant opposite party-2 filed an application dated 10.03.2021 praying therein that in view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the proceedings of the criminal cases be terminated in the light of the compromise entered into by the parties. However, no other order was passed by Court below in the light of the compromise entered into by the parties. Thereafter, a fresh application dated 20.09.2024 was jointly filed by the parties before Court below praying therein that the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case be terminated in the light of compromise entered into by the parties. 5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that on account of some mis-understanding applicant who is an accused in aforementioned case did not attend the proceedings of above-mentioned complaint case. Consequently, non-bailable warrant has now issued by Court below against applicant. He, however, submits that in view of the compromise entered into by the parties no useful purpose shall be served by Court below in securing the custodial arrest of applicant once the parties have entered into compromise. The proceedings of above-mentioned complaint case are liable to be terminated by this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party-1 does not dispute the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant. Mr. Shayam Babu Patel, the learned counsel representing complainant opposite party-2 submits that once first informant has himself entered into a compromise with the accused applicant then in that eventuality he can have any grievance in case the entire proceedings of above-mentioned complaint case are terminated by this Court in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties. 7. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that the parties have entered into a compromise. The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, has given detailed guidelines regarding compromise in criminal matters. It is by now well settled that compromise can be entered into by the parties in criminal cases even in respect of cognizable/non- compoundable offences but subject to certain exceptions imposed by the Supreme Court. 8. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, the leaned counsel representing complainant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the matter requires consideration. 9. Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A. 10. Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party-2. 11. They pray for and are granted 4 weeks' time to file their respective counter affidavits. Applicants will have 2 weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit. 12. List for admission on 20.12.2024, before appropriate Bench. 13. In the meantime, parties are directed to appear before Court below on 21.11.2024 for verification of compromise alongwith the a certified copy of this order. In case, parties appear before Court below on the date fixed for verification of compromise, the Court concerned shall proceed to verify the compromise in terms of this order. In case, compromise entered into by the parties is verified, the Court below shall transmit the true copy of the order pertaining to verification of compromise as well as it's verification report to this Court before the next date fixed. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the counsel for applicant in support of this application as noted herein above, coupled with the fact that compromise has been entered into by the parties which has been acted upon, as an interim measure, it is, hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, no coercive action shall be taken by Court below against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 191/2018 (Babli Ahmad Vs. Rizwan). under sections 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly, now pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.-2) District Bareilly. 15. When the matter is listed next, the name of Mr. Shayam Babu Patel,, Advocate, shall also be duly published in the cause list as counsel for complainant/opposite party-. 16. The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench. 17. Assignment, if any, stands discharged. Order Date :- 7.11.2024/Imtiyaz