Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 204 (ALL)

Anil Kumar v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Manju Rani Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Satyendra Nath Tiwar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of Application U/s 482 No. 29776 of 2021, the applicant-Anil Kumar has challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 284 of 2020, State v. Sudhir Nishad and others, pending th before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V , Jaunpur arising out of Case Crime No. 345 of 2018, under Sections 498-A , 506 , 376 , 313 IPC , Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur and by means of Application U/s 482 No. 33155 of 2024 the applicants - Sudheer Nishad, Sabhajeet and Vimla Devi have challenged order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 362 of 2022, State v. Sudheer Nishad and others, arising out of Case Crime No.345 of 2018, against the applicant no.1-Sudheer Nishad, under Sections 323 , 504 , 498-A , 313 I.P.C. and against the applicant no.2- Sabhajeet and applicant no.3-Vimla Devi, under Sections 323 , 498-A , 313 I.P.C., Police Station-Badlapur, District-Jaunpur. 3. On 27.11.2024, the following order was passed:- "Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, and perused the record. By means of Application U/s 482 No. 29776 of 2021, the applicant - Anil Kumar has challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 284 of 2020, State v. Sudhir Nishad and others, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Jaunpur arising out of Case Crime No. 345 of 2018, under Sections 498-A , 506 , 376 , 313 IPC , Police Station Badalpur, District Jaunpur and by means of Application U/s 482 No. 33155 of 2024 the applicants - Sudheer Nishad, Sabhajeet and Vimla Devi have challenged order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 362 of 2022, State v. Sudheer Nishad and others. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a compromise. In this regard, an application was moved on behalf of the parties putting signatures of all the alleged accused persons mentioning therein that they do not want to proceed with the case as the applicant no. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a compromise. In this regard, an application was moved on behalf of the parties putting signatures of all the alleged accused persons mentioning therein that they do not want to proceed with the case as the applicant no. 1 is living happily with opposite party no. 2 after resolving the dispute. The aforesaid application is rejected by order dated 30.07.2024 on the ground that the offence is not compoundable. Learned counsel further submits that the order impugned dated 30.07.2024 has been passed without realizing the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants will ruin the happy married life of the couple and would be futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court as also 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, (2012) 10 SCC 303 Learned AGA does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 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. In view of the above, parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed and 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, 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 statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not. 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. Put up this case on 10.01.2025, as fresh. 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. Put up this case on 10.01.2025, as fresh. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 27.11.2024, the concerned Court of Session Judge, Jaunpur has verified the compromise vide order dated 09.01.2025. Certified copy of the aforesaid compromise verification order dated 09.01.2025 has been passed on to the Court today by learned counsel for the applicants and the same is kept on record. Order dated 09.01.2025 shows that the aforesaid compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties along with their respective counsels. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and have entered into compromise. He further contends that earlier an application along with compromise deed was moved before the court concerned for verification of the compromise but the same has been rejected by order dated 30.07.2024 on the ground that the offence is non-compoundable, subsequently on 09.01.2025 the aforesaid verification order was passed by the court concerned in compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 27.11.2024. He further 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State also accepts 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. 7. 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 8. 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 8. 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, 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 284 of 2020, State v. Sudhir Nishad and others, pending before Additional th Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Jaunpur arising out of Case Crime No. 345 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 506, 376, 313 I.P.C., Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur and the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 362 of 2022, State v. Sudheer Nishad and others, arising out of Case Crime No.345 of 2018, against the applicant no.1-Sudheer Nishad, under Sections 323, 504, 498-A, 313 I.P.C. and against the applicant no.2-Sabhajeet and applicant no.3-Vimla Devi, under Sections 323, 498-A, 313 I.P.C., Police Station-Badlapur, District- Jaunpur, are hereby quashed 11. The application is, accordingly, allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.