State v. Uday Vishwakarma and others), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:197520 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42204 of 2024 Applicant :- Uday Vishwakarma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in the Court, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 3. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash charge-sheet no.01 of 2021 dated 09.05.2021, cognizance/ summoning order dated 11.08.2021 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.4375 of 2021 (State Vs. Uday Vishwakarma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0031 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, on the basis of compromise. 4. Earlier Application U/S 482 No. 37035 of 2024 was filed, wherein on 06.11.2024 the following order was passed:- "1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate has filed short counter affidavit along with his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Laxman Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. P.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet No.1 of 2021 dated 09.05.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 11.08.2021 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Crl. Case No.4375 of 2021 (State Vs. Uday Vishwakarma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0031 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC & Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun, on the basis of compromise dated 03.06.2024, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, District Jalaun. 4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of Court and have entered into compromise. In this regard, an affidavit on behalf of both the parties has been moved before the Court concerned mentioning therein that they have entered into compromise and they do not want to press the case, copy of said affidavit has been annexed as Annexure no.8 to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings 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 AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants 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. 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, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement 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. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the order verifying the compromise deed and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. 8. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Decision
9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of." 5. In compliance of the aforesaid order compromise has been verified by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (C.A.W.), Jalaun vide order dated 18.11.2024, certified copy of the same has been annexed as annexure No.9 of the application. 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 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. 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, the proceedings of charge-sheet no.01 of 2021 dated 09.05.2021, cognizance/ summoning order dated 11.08.2021 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.4375 of 2021 (State Vs. Uday Vishwakarma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0031 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed. 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 17.12.2024 Abhishek Singh