Others v. State of U.P. And

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 24.06.2024, cognizance order dated 04.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1053 of 2024 (State vs. Jakeel and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station- Bhojpur, District- Moradabad, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thakurdwara, Moradabad, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 & 3 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into a compromise, thereafter, Applicants approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Application U/S 482 No. 31725 of 2024 (Jakeel And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.09.2024 passed following order:- "1. Sri Saif Ali Khan, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Saif Ali Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 1053 of 2024 (State vs. Jakeel and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under sections 452, 323 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bhojpur, District-Moradabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Thakurdwara, Moradabad, as well as chargesheet dated 24.6.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 4.7.2024.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 18.8.2024, which has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicants are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicants and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants and the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

6. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

7. Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

8. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

9. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

10. For a period of two months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the chargesheet dated 24.6.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 4.7.2024, shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned.

11. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.

12. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same. "

4. In pursuance of order of this Court dated 20.09.2024, the Trial court vide order dated 09.10.2024 verified the parties as well as the contents of compromise application through their counsels. Verification report dated 09.10.2024 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the present application. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 & 3 compromised the matter and opposite party nos.2 & 3 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 & 3 have settled through compromise their dispute and as such opposite party nos.2 & 3 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party nos.2 & 3 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.

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the impugned charge sheet dated 24.06.2024, cognizance order dated 04.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1053 of 2024 (State vs. Jakeel and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station- Bhojpur, District- Moradabad, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thakurdwara, Moradabad, are hereby quashed.

9. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Aditya

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 24.06.2024, cognizance order dated 04.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1053 of 2024 (State vs. Jakeel and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station- Bhojpur, District- Moradabad, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thakurdwara, Moradabad, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 & 3 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into a compromise, thereafter, Applicants approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Application U/S 482 No. 31725 of 2024 (Jakeel And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.09.2024 passed following order:- "1. Sri Saif Ali Khan, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Saif Ali Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 1053 of 2024 (State vs. Jakeel and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under sections 452, 323 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bhojpur, District-Moradabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Thakurdwara, Moradabad, as well as chargesheet dated 24.6.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 4.7.2024.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 18.8.2024, which has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicants are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicants and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicants and the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

6. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

7. Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

8. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

9. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

10. For a period of two months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the chargesheet dated 24.6.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 4.7.2024, shall remain stayed so far as applicants are concerned.

11. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order.

12. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same. "

4. In pursuance of order of this Court dated 20.09.2024, the Trial court vide order dated 09.10.2024 verified the parties as well as the contents of compromise application through their counsels. Verification report dated 09.10.2024 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the present application. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 & 3 compromised the matter and opposite party nos.2 & 3 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 & 3 have settled through compromise their dispute and as such opposite party nos.2 & 3 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party nos.2 & 3 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.

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the impugned charge sheet dated 24.06.2024, cognizance order dated 04.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1053 of 2024 (State vs. Jakeel and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station- Bhojpur, District- Moradabad, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thakurdwara, Moradabad, are hereby quashed.

9. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Aditya