1. List revised. None appears on behalf of applicant to press this application even in the revised calling of the list whereas Ms. Nandini, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mr. D.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, are present.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Special Trial No. 34 of 2017 (State Vs. Manoj Rai and another), under section 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(da)(dha) SC/ST Act, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Jhansi arising out of Case Crime No. 022 of 2016, under sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (x) SC/ST Act, Police Station Babina, District Jhansi on the basis of compromise.

3. On 02.07.2024, the following order was passed:-

"1. Heard Mr. Tarun Jha, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Nandini, learned counsel for the opposite party, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Special Trial No.34 of 2017 (State vs. Manoj Rai and Another) under Sections 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, District- Jhansi, arising out of Case Crime No.022 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Babina, District- Jhansi.

3. On 01.05.2024 the following order was passed:-

"Miss Nandini, Advocate filed is power today on behalf of the opposite party no.2, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Special Trial No.34/2017 (State vs. Manoj Rai and another) under Sections 304, 506 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Jhansi, arising out of Case Crime No. 022 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Babina, District Jhansi.

Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the parties have amicably settled their disputes vide compromise dated 06.04.2024 which has been placed as Annexure No. 4 to the present application.

Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the parties shall appear and file the said compromise before the Court concerned, who shall verify the same within 30 days thereafter and send his report to this Court.

A report shall be called from the District Magistrate, Jhansi whether any compensation was paid to the opposite party No. 2/victim and the said amount has been returned back to the authority concerned or not.

List this case on 02.07.2024 as fresh alongwith the Verification Report and Compensation Report showing the name of Ms. Nandini as counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

In the meantime, no coercive measures shall be taken against the appellant under the aforesaid case crime."

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, report regarding compensation as well as the report regarding compromise has been placed on record, as is evident from office report dated 02.07.2024. From the letter of District Magistrate, Jhansi dated 13.06.2024, it is clear that the compensation as received by the victim has been returned. The copy of the challan has also been placed on record showing that the said amount has been deposited.

5. The letter of Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jhansi dated 01.07.2024 shows that none of the parties appeared to file compromise application alongwith the order of this Court, therefore, compromise could not be verified.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute but due to some difficulty the parties could not appear before the court concerned in compliance of order dated 01.05.2024, therefore, the compromise could not be verified.

7. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

8. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

9. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order within a week from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not

10. 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 and file the same before this Court.

11. Put up this case, as fresh on 31.07.2024 at 02:00 PM.

12. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the report regarding verification of compromise received from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 30.07.2024. A letter of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jhansi dated 26.07.2024 has been placed on record along with copy of order dated 26.07.2024 vide which the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties and their respective counsels.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order dated 26.07.2024, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

6. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

7. 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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

8. 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

9. Accordingly, the proceedings of cognizance order dated 16.8.2021 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.235 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.370 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Parikshitgarh, District Meerut pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.6, Meerut, in terms of the compromise dated 28.10.2021, are hereby quashed.

10. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. It is directed that in case the compensation amount is not returned by the opposite party no.2, the concerned District Magistrate is directed to proceed against the opposite party no.2 in accordance with law.

12. Registrar Compliance as well as learned Government Advocate shall look into compliance of this order.

13. Mr. D.P. Singh, learned AGA shall inform about this order to learned Government Advocate.

14. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud.