SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Aman vs State Of U.P. & Another on 28 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. – 28

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 1570 of 2021

Applicant :- Aman

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Narvind Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari

Hon’ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Heard Sri Narvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Rupendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

Instant application has been moved by the applicant to quash the charge sheet and proceedings of Sessions Trial No.74 of 2021, pertaining to Case Crime No.280 of 2020, under Section 354 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act and Section 7/8, POCSO Act, P.S.Bilgram, District Hardoi, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hardoi.

Learned counsel for applicant as well as learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 jointly submits that an FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant under Section 354 I.P.C. as well as Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act, and after investigation of the same charge sheet was filed and the Magistrate concerned has also taken cognizance and issued process against the applicant to face trial.

It is submitted that after the submission of the charge sheet better sense has prevailed amongst the parties and they have compromised the matter by executing a written compromise which has been placed at page nos.16 – 17 of the paper book whereby it is stipulated that as the parties have amicably settled the dispute, the opposite party no.2 is not interested in prosecuting the case and on the basis of compromise the proceedings of the case pending in the court below be quashed.

It is also submitted that this Court in Petition (u/s.482 Cr.P.C.) No.1294 of 2021 as well as Petition (u/s.482 Cr.P.C.) No.1083 of 2021, by passing orders dated 15.7.2021 16.7.2021, respectively have entertained the compromise filed in the cases pertaining to POCSO Act and, therefore, having regard to the inherent powers of this Court, the proceedings pending before the courts below in this case can be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

It is also submitted that alleged offence is not so where the society at large or the public at large was affected by the commission of alleged offence and the pendency of the instant criminal case may also multiply the litigation between the parties.

Learned counsel for State would do not have any objection if the dispute is settled between the parties through compromise.

Whether the parties have, in fact compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below, before which, the case is pending. Therefore, the compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the court below itself. Accordingly, the application is disposed of with direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it within 10 days from today, it shall issue notice to all its signatories requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. 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 applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

For a period of two months, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicant.

Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to learned counsel for the applicant after taking photocopy of the same on record.

Order Date :- 28.7.2021

Irfan

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation