Manoj and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Manoj and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 353 of 2019 pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division II, Hapur, arising out of Charge Sheet no. 196 of 2009 dated 24.11.2009 in Case Crime No. 291 of 2009 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 IPC, on account of the compromise between the parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 353 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No. 291 of 2009, Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 IPC) should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement/compromise between the applicants and opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

Court's answer

In view of the compromise between the applicants and opposite party nos. 2 and 3, and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of Case No. 353 of 2019.

Ratio / Principle

The entire proceeding of Case No. 353 of 2019, pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division II, Hapur, arising out of Charge Sheet no. 196 of 2009 dated 24.11.2009 in Case Crime No. 291 of 2009, is quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Compromise/settlement between parties - Applicants and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (informant side) amicably settled their dispute out of court; compromise verified by the trial court vide order dated 17.10.2024 pursuant to this Court's order dated 04.10.2024; the cross case (Case Crime No. 310 of 2009) was likewise compromised, with parties verified vide order dated 28.05.2024 in connected Application No. 16367 of 2024. Relying on Narindra Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayanan, (2019) 5 SCC 688; and Shaifullah v. State of U.P., 2013 (83) ACC 278 (compromise permissible even in certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences), the Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings and quashed the entire proceeding of Case No. 353 of 2019 (State v. Manoj and others), arising out of Charge Sheet no. 196 of 2009 dated 24.11.2009 in Case Crime No. 291 of 2009 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 IPC, P.S. Dhaulana, pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division II, Hapur. Application allowed (order dated 16.4.2025).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55336

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16323 of 2024

Applicant :- Manoj And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Pratap Singh,G.A.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of the case no. 353 of 2019 (State Vs Manoj and others) pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division II^nd Hapur, arising out of Charge Sheet no.196 of 2009 dated 24.11.2009 in case crime no.291 of 2009 u/s 323,324,325,506 IPC P.S Dhaulana District Ghaziabad (Presently Hapur).

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 and 3 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 482 application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.10.2024 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 17.10.2024 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 and 3 compromised the matter and opposite party nos.2 and 3 do not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 and 3 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 do not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party nos.2 and 3 are ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

It is further submitted that the present case is a cross case, applicants have lodged FIR as Case Crime No.310 of 2009, against the informant and others in which both parties have compromised the matter and has filed 482 Cr.P.C. application bearing No.16367

of 2024 to quash the criminal proceedings on account of compromise. The Court by order dated 17.05.2024 has directed the parties to appear before trial court. Counsel submits that parties have been verified in those proceedings by trial court vide order dated 28.05.2024.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 do not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party nos.2 and 3 have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and noncompoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble 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 learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

Accordingly, the entire proceeding of the case no. 353 of 2019, pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division II^nd Hapur, arising out of Charge Sheet no.196 of 2009 dated 24.11.2009 in case crime no.291 of 2009, u/s 323,324,325,506 IPC P.S Dhaulana District Ghaziabad (Presently Hapur), is hereby quashed.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed .

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Nitin Verma

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