Pavan @ Pavan Kumar v. State of UP and Another

Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8504 of 2020 Applicant :- Pavan @ Pavan Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Prasad Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

¶2This application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the criminal case no. 2948 of 2019, State Vs. Pavan, as well as impugned cognizance order dated 31.10.2019 arising out of case crime No. 176 of 2019, under section 452, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Chirgaon, District Jhansi,g pending in the court of A.C.J.M-I Jhansi in terms of the compromise entered between the parties dated 7.2.2020..

¶3The case was heard on 28.02.2020 and the Court has passed the following order:- "Vakalatnama filed by Shri Rajendra Prasad Yadav on behalf of O.P. No.2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. This application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the criminal case no. 2948 of 2019, State Vs. Pavan, as well as impugned cognizance order dated 31.10.2019 arising out of case crime No. 176 of 2019, under section 452, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Chirgaon, District Jhansi,g pending in the court of A.C.J.M-I Jhansi in terms of the compromise entered between the parties dated 7.2.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute had arisen between the applicant and the opposite party No.2. After the incident they have amicably settled their dispute and arrived at a compromise vide compromise deed, which has been annexed as Annexure no. 7 of the affidavit. On the basis of the said compromise deed, it has been prayed before this Court that the proceedings be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 has also acknowledged the settlement agreement and has stated that in view of the compromise made between the parties the entire proceeding be quashed. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court concerned before whom the proceedings are pending after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. In view of the above, list this case on 10.4.2020 before the appropriate Bench. In the meantime, the court below will proceed to fix a date for securing the presence of the parties to the proceedings before it and proceed thereafter to 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. Till the next date of listing, if within two weeks from today a certified copy of this order is produced before the court below with an application to verify a compromise already placed on record, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicant till verification of the compromise in accordance with the observations made herein above. "

¶4Pursuant to order dated 28.02.2020, compromise has been verified by the trial Court vide order dated 22.03.2021 and the same has been received to this Court from Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.4, Jhansi, vide letter dated 02.06.2023.

¶5Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has not objected the aforesaid facts and submitted that in case proceedings against the applicants is quashed, he would have no objection.

¶6Learned A.G.A. has also not disputed the aforesaid facts.

¶7In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶8Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 529, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another; (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2014) Supreme Today 642, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶9The present application is, accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Amit/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad