The Single Judge quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 392, 323, 504, and 506 IPC following a verified compromise between parties, finding no useful purpose in continuing the trial.
The proceedings of Complaint Case no. 384 of 2016 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Hapur are hereby quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3074 of 2019
Applicant :- Ram Autar @ Sajan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 384 of 2016 (Savita Devi vs. Ram Autar and others) under Section 392, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Pilkhuwa, District Hapur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Hapur.
On 25.01.2019, following order has passed:
" This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 384 of 2016 (Savita Devi Vs. Ram Autar and others), under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Pilkhuwa, District- Hapur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in terms of the compromise dated 21.05.2018(Annexure No.-8).
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have approached this Court earlier moved an Application U/S 482 No. 5649 of 2010 and this Court directed the applicant to appear before the Court concerned through counsel and to move for discharge. It was also argued that that parties have settled their dispute and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping this Application pending before this Court. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. A copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-8 to the application. It is further contended that 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.
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.
List this case on 07.03.2019 before the appropriate Bench.
Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their
presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 12.02.2019 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. 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.
Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise annexed as Annexure8 to the application to the court concerned within three days.
Till the next date of listing no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants ."
In compliance of the order dated 25.01.2019, counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit before this Court annexing the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the concerned court by which compromise between the parties has been verified.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of the Apex Court:
a) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another ; (2003) 4 SCC 675 ;
b) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ; (2008) 9 SCC 677 ;
c) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others ; (2008) 16 SCC 1 ;
d) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab ; (2012) 10 SCC 303 ;
e) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ; (2014) 6 SCC 466;
In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held wherein 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.
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 complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case no. 384 of 2016 (Savita Devi vs. Ram Autar and others) under Section 392, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Pilkhuwa, District Hapur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Hapur, are hereby quashed.
This Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Priya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in light of a verified compromise between the parties.
Whether a useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings given the settlement of the dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and AnotherReferred¶17
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another ; (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶17
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ; (2008) 9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and OthersReferred¶17
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others ; (2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab ; (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶17
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ; (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & AnotherReferred¶23
Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another ; 2013 (83) ACC 278
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Autar @ Sajan And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And Another
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
