Allowed

Mahtab and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024A482/40154/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court entertained an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging non-termination of criminal proceedings following a settlement. Finding the dispute private, the Court directed verification of the compromise at the lower court and granted an interim stay on coercive action against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Stayed coercive action against applicants until further orders in Case No. 357 of 2015; directed parties to verify compromise before Court below.

Mahtab and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40154 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mahtab And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Belal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mohammad Belal, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

2. Perused the record.

¶7

Applicants-Mahtab and 2 Others, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the police report/charge sheet No. 49 of 2016 dated 13.03.2016 submitted by Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 24.08.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-2, Meerut in Case No. 9167 of 2016 (State Vs. Mahtab and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 357 of 2015, under Sections 308, 325, 504 IPC, Police Station-Kithaur, District-Meerut as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Meerut.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants submits that during pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the terms of the compromise were reduced to writing by means of a compromise deed, copy of which is on record at page 59 of the paper book. Thereafter, on the basis of said compromise, an application dated 27.09.2022 was filed by first informant-opposite party-2 before Court below praying therein that proceedings of above-mentioned criminal cased be terminated in the light of compromise entered into by the parties.

¶9

It is next contended by the learned counsel for applicants that in spite of the fact that a period of more than 2 years has rolled by from the date of application dated 27.09.2022, no orders has been passed by Court concerned in the light of application dated 27.09.2022 for terminating the proceedings of above-mentioned

¶10

criminal case. Accordingly, applicants have approached this Court by means of present application in Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. contends that no illegality has been committed by Court below in not terminating the proceedings of aforementioned criminal case in the light of compromise entered into by the parties on account of prohibition contained under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Be that as it may, this Court finds that the crux of the matter is that the parties have entered into a compromise. The dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against State/Society. The Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has now provided detailed guidelines with regard to compromise in criminal matters. It is by now well settled that compromise can be entered into by the parties even in respect of cognizable and noncompoundable offences but subject to certain exceptions.

¶13

In view of above, the parties are directed to appear before Court below on 10.12.2024 along with certified copy of this order for verification of compromise. In case, the parties appear before Court below on the above-mentioned date for verification of compromise, Court below shall proceed to verify the compromise so entered into by the parties in compliance of this order. In case, the compromise entered into by the parties stands verified, the Court concerned shall transmit the copy of the order, by which, compromise has been verified and further it's verification report qua the same to this Court before the next date fixed.

¶14

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

¶15

Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

¶16

Issue notice to opposite party-2.

¶17

All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits on or before the date fixed in the notice.

¶18

List for admission on 16.01.2025 before appropriate Bench.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of this application as noted herein above and coupled with the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, which has also been acted upon, as an interim measure, it is, hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants in Case No. 357 of 2015, under Sections 308, 325, 504 IPC, Police Station-Kithaur, District-Meerut now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Meerut shall remain stayed.

¶20

Assignment, if any, stands discharged.

¶21

The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 Vinay

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahtab and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahtab and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhan and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sevati Lal and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Eram and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahmad and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mewa Lal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukim and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another