Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 119 (ALL)

Shitanshu Sharma v. State of U. P.

2025-01-24

SAMIT GOPAL

body2025
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Supriy Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Shitanshu Sharma, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned order dated 13.10.2023, in Case No. 11 of 2021 on the basis of Compromise / Settlement taken place between the parties, arising out of Case Crime No. 480 of 2020, under Sections 504, 506 and 353 I.P.C., Police Station George Town, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-07, Prayagraj, with a further prayer to quash the Section 353 I.P.C. in alternate due to which the learned trial court after verifying the Compromise entered in between the parties, passed the impugned order dated13.10.2023. 4. During the course of argument it was submitted before the Court on 04.12.2023 that the parties have entered into a compromise which was directed to be verified by the court concerned. In compliance of the said order a report was placed by the office through its report dated 23.09.2024 which is of the A.C.J.M., Court No.7, Prayagraj, verifying the said compromise. 5. This Court on 24.09.2024 observed that since the first information report was lodged in the official capacity of the opposite party no.2, he cannot compound the matter without permission & sanction of the Government. The following order was passed by this Court on 24.09.2024:- "1. Heard Sri Harshit Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vaibhav Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State are present. 2. Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is not present. 3. The matter is being argued on the basis of compromise entered into between the applicant and opposite party no.2. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that since the F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 while being on duty in his official capacity. He cannot compound the offence in his personal capacity without permission and sanction of the government. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that since the F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 while being on duty in his official capacity. He cannot compound the offence in his personal capacity without permission and sanction of the government. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention to the Court to paragraph 4 of order dated 04.12.2023 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court whereby learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 / Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. has given his no objection for deciding the matter on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The said learned counsel is not present today before this Court. 6. The matter is, thus, adjourned for today. 7. Learned counsel for the shall give notice in writing to learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 within a week about this order. 8. Let the matter be listed on 23.10.2024. 9. Interim order, if any, shall remain in currency till the next date of listing." 6. Subsequently the matter was taken up on various dates and a counter affidavit although was filed but the same was considered to be not happily worded and as such an order was passed on 13.12.2024 which reads as under:- "1. Sri Supriya Mishra holding brief of Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State are present. 2. Although a counter affidavit dated 11.11.2024 of the opposite party no.3 is on record but learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 submits that para 12 of the said counter affidavit is not happily worded and as such he will be filing a better affidavit within a period of one week. 3. Prayer is allowed. 4. Let the matter be listed on 20.12.2024. 5. Interim order, if any, shall remain in currency till the next date of listing." 7. 3. Prayer is allowed. 4. Let the matter be listed on 20.12.2024. 5. Interim order, if any, shall remain in currency till the next date of listing." 7. Today learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has placed reliance upon a short-counter affidavit dated 20.12.2024 which is already on record and has been placed by the office through its report dated 16.01.2025 in which the affidavit is of Sri Mahendra Prasad, Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division, Tagore Town, Prayagraj, who has in paragraph 12 stated that he has no objection on the compromise which is done in good faith by the applicant and the informant.Paragraph 12 of the same reads as under:- "That, the answering respondent being Executive Engineer of Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Corporation Ltd. has no objection on the compromise is done in good faith by applicant and informant." It is submitted that as such the compromise be accepted. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant also places reliance on the said compromise, the verification of the same and the short-counter affidavit dated 20.12.2024. 9. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the said proposition. 10. The office vide its report dated 23.09.2024, reported that a report from the A.C.J.M., Court No.7, Prayagraj, through the C.J.M., Prayagraj, has been received, wherein it has been stated that compromise between the parties has been verified vide its report dated 02.09.2024. 11. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of court and on the basis of compromise the applicants filed the present Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. in which an order for verification of the compromise was passed on 04.12.2023 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is argued that in compliance of the said order, the parties have filed the order of this Court along with compromise application before the concerned court for its verification after which the concerned court has verified the said compromise vide its order dated 02.09.2024. It is argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the trial court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the applicants and therefore the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties. 12. It is argued that the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the trial court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the applicants and therefore the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the State could not dispute the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties which was duly verified by the concerned trial court. 13. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (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) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed. 14. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the entire proceedings of case as prayed for by the applicants. 15. The present application is allowed 16. The entire proceedings of the said case are hereby quashed subject to the applicant depositing Rs.10,000/- before the concerned trial court which shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Authority of the district. 17. A copy of this order by transmitted by the Registrar (Compliance) of this Court to the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow, U.P., for his information and necessary action within 03 days from today for bringing in his knowledge about the matter and its subsequent development.