The High Court dismissed a quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding Sections 498-A and 323 IPC after the trial court verified a compromise between the parties. The Court held that prolonging trials would serve no useful purpose upon settlement.
The criminal proceedings under Case No. 2169 of 2019 were 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. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6023 of 2023
Applicant :- Sachin And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and perused the materials on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 23.12.2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, in Case No. 2169 of 2019 (State Vs. Sachin and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 455 of 2019, Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women), Meerut.
Since the parties have resolved their disputes and a compromise has been entered between them the applicants have approached this Court earlier by means of Application U/S 482 No.- 35215 of 2022 wherein on 08.12.2022, a coordinate Bench of this Court has passed following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Arvind Mishra holding brief of Sri Somedra Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 23.12.2019 including the charge sheet no. 01 dated 11.11.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2169 of 2019 (State v. Sachin and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 455 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, pending before the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C.(Crime Against Women), Meerut on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed dated 04.08.2022 has been annexed as Annexure 4 to this affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no.2 does not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the
correctness of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicant may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.
In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that Court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned 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?
The Court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."
Pursuant to the above order, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women), Meerut vide order dated 06.01.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women), Meerut vide order dated 06.01.2023 and the compromise have been annexed along with the affidavit accompanying this application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the concerned Judge, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(2008) 9 SCC 677,
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.
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 case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceeding of Case No. 2169 of 2019 (State Vs. Sachin and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 455 of 2019, Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women), Meerut are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.3.2023 SK Srivastava
Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act should be quashed in view of a settled compromise verified by the trial court.
Whether a compromise deed verified by the lower court is sufficient to quash the appeal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and AnotherReferred¶21
(2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶22
(2008) 9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and OthersReferred¶24
(2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶25
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶26
( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & AnotherReferred¶27
2013 (83) ACC 278
Sachin and 2 Others
Shiv Shanker Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
