High Court

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the proceedings of Case No. 18685 (CNR - UPAG041406832024), State v. Padam Kumar Verma @ Sonu Verma and others, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 02, Agra as well as charge sheet dated 20.08.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Barhan, District Agra.

4. Earlier, on 12.12.2024 following order was passed: "1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.18685 (CNR UPAGo41406832024) (State Vs. Padam Kumar Verma @ Sonu Verma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Barhan, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 02, Agra including the charge-sheet No. 119 of 2024 dated 20.08.2024, on the basis of compromise.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. After the aforesaid applicant No.1 and opposite party no.2 have decided to stay together as husband and wife. In this regard opposite party no.2 has moved an application before the court concerned mentioning therein that she does not want to proceed the case. The copy of the said application, filed before the court below, is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would be a 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 also 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, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order. 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 four weeks 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. 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 21.01.2025, as fresh.

9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise has been verified by order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, District Agra. A copy of the said order has been brought on record at Page-10 to the counter affidavit filed today.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court concerned, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State accepts that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed alongwith verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

8. Before proceeding further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675;

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677;

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1;

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303; and

5. 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, 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 hereinabove, 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 Case No. 18685 (CNR - UPAG041406832024), State v. Padam Kumar Verma @ Sonu Verma and others, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 02, Agra as well as charge sheet dated 20.08.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Barhan, District Agra, are hereby quashed.

12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned forthwith. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 DS

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the proceedings of Case No. 18685 (CNR - UPAG041406832024), State v. Padam Kumar Verma @ Sonu Verma and others, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 02, Agra as well as charge sheet dated 20.08.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Barhan, District Agra.

4. Earlier, on 12.12.2024 following order was passed: "1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.18685 (CNR UPAGo41406832024) (State Vs. Padam Kumar Verma @ Sonu Verma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Barhan, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 02, Agra including the charge-sheet No. 119 of 2024 dated 20.08.2024, on the basis of compromise.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. After the aforesaid applicant No.1 and opposite party no.2 have decided to stay together as husband and wife. In this regard opposite party no.2 has moved an application before the court concerned mentioning therein that she does not want to proceed the case. The copy of the said application, filed before the court below, is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would be a 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 also 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, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order. 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 four weeks 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. 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 21.01.2025, as fresh.

9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise has been verified by order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, District Agra. A copy of the said order has been brought on record at Page-10 to the counter affidavit filed today.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court concerned, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State accepts that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed alongwith verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

8. Before proceeding further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675;

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677;

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1;

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303; and

5. 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, 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 hereinabove, 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 Case No. 18685 (CNR - UPAG041406832024), State v. Padam Kumar Verma @ Sonu Verma and others, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 02, Agra as well as charge sheet dated 20.08.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Barhan, District Agra, are hereby quashed.

12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned forthwith. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 DS