B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and Another

2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Jitendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 16.04.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.07.2021, of Session Trial No. 437 of 2022 (State Vs. Yogendra @ Bhuru and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0724 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad on the basis of compromise.

4. Earlier on 12.9.2024, the following order was passed:- "Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 16.04.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.07.2021, of Session Trial No. 437 of 2022 (State Vs. Yogendra @ Bhuru and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0724 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that incident of this case took place suddenly and a case was registered from the side of applicant against the informants' party and after that first information report of this case was lodged. Now, both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter. In cross case, this Court has already passed order for submission of compromise before the Trial Court. It was submitted that as both the parties have compromised the matter thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that in case the parties appear before the trial court and file an appropriate application for compromise within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be verified by the court concerned in accordance with law and if the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date. List this case on 18.10.2024. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid session trial. "

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 07.01.2025. A letter of the Session Judge, Ghaziabad dated 24.09.2024 has been placed alongwith certified copy of order dated 24.09.2024 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

8. Before proceeding any 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, 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 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 charge-sheet dated 16.04.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.07.2021, of Session Trial No. 437 of 2022 (State Vs. Yogendra @ Bhuru and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0724 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.

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

13. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Jitendra/- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Jitendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 16.04.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.07.2021, of Session Trial No. 437 of 2022 (State Vs. Yogendra @ Bhuru and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0724 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad on the basis of compromise.

4. Earlier on 12.9.2024, the following order was passed:- "Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 16.04.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.07.2021, of Session Trial No. 437 of 2022 (State Vs. Yogendra @ Bhuru and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0724 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that incident of this case took place suddenly and a case was registered from the side of applicant against the informants' party and after that first information report of this case was lodged. Now, both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter. In cross case, this Court has already passed order for submission of compromise before the Trial Court. It was submitted that as both the parties have compromised the matter thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that in case the parties appear before the trial court and file an appropriate application for compromise within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be verified by the court concerned in accordance with law and if the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date. List this case on 18.10.2024. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid session trial. "

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 07.01.2025. A letter of the Session Judge, Ghaziabad dated 24.09.2024 has been placed alongwith certified copy of order dated 24.09.2024 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

8. Before proceeding any 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, 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 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 charge-sheet dated 16.04.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.07.2021, of Session Trial No. 437 of 2022 (State Vs. Yogendra @ Bhuru and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0724 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.

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

13. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Jitendra/- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad