High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20879 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24782 of 2024 Applicant :- Nand Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vandana Upadhyay Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Legal Reasoning
In view of the above, the opposite party no.2 is directed to submit a demand draft of Rs.6,000/- in the name of District Social Welfare Officer, Sonbhadra before the court concerned and file an affidavit before this Court in this regard by the next date fixed. In case such draft is deposited before the court concerned, the same shall be sent to the District Social Welfare Officer, who will place a report in this regard before this Court by the next date fixed. Put up this case on 21.10.2024, as fresh, showing the name of Ms. Vanadna Upadhyay as counsel for the opposite party no.2. Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing. " 4. Pursuant to the order dated 31.07.2024, there is a report dated 16.08.2024 showing that the parties had compromised and the compensation has already been received. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned counsel for the State do not dispute the said fact rather they admit the said fact and according to them, proceedings be quashed. 6. The application stands allowed. 7. In view of the above, the impugned summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the learned trial court arising from the cognizance order dated 05.09.2002 over the charge sheet dated 31.08.2002, submitted by the investigating officer in Case Crime No. 38 of 2002, under sections 467, 468, 420, 471, 218 IPC and 3(1)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Gorawal, District Sonbhadra are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 K.K.Tiwari Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Mr. Satyam Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State and Ms Vandana Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. This Court on 31.07.2024, proceeded to pass the following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the learned trial court which arising from the cognizance order dated 05.09.2002 over the cahrge sheet dated 31.08.2002, submitted by the investigating officer in Case Crime No. 38 of 2002, under section 467, 468, 420, 471, 218 IPC and 3(1)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Gorawal, District Sonbhadra on the basis of compromise dated 14.05.2024 and it is further prayed to stay the proceeding of the aforesaid case. 3. Earlier an Application U/s 482 No. 15234 of 2006 was filed by the applicant which was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.03.2022. After dismissal of the aforesaid application, under changed circumstances wherein the parties have entered into compromise, the Second Application U/s 482 filed challenging the summoning order as well as entire proceedings, is maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. The copy of the said compromise/mutual deed, filed before the court below, is annexed as Annexure No. 2 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. 5. Learned AGA also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 6. 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. 7. 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 within a period of two weeks from today. 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 one month 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? The facts regarding the amount towards compensation as received and stated to be returned, shall also be verified. 8. Upon due verification of compromise as well as compensation amount, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. 9. Put up this case on 29th August, 2024, as fresh. 10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. " 3. Thereafter on 29.08.2024 and on 27.09.2024 the following orders were passed: "Ms. Vandana Upadhyay, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, is taken on record. In compliance of earlier order dated 31.07.2024, compromise between the parties has been verified as is evident from the letter dated 27.08.2024 of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra, but there is no report regarding compensation. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that the opposite party no.2 has received an amount of Rs.6,000/- as compensation, which he will return. In view of the above, the opposite party no.2 is directed to return the compensation amount of Rs.6,000/- and file an affidavit in this regard by the next date fixed. Put up this case on 13.09.2024, as fresh, showing the name of Ms. Vanadna Upadhyay as counsel for the opposite party no.2. Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing." "Ms. Vandana Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 states that due to technical glitch, the compensation amount could not be paid in compliance with the earlier order dated 29.08.2024. She further submits that the opposite party no.2 will be submitting a draft of Rs.6,000/- in the name of District Social Welfare Officer, Sonbhadra before the court concerned.