Allahabad High Court
Ganeshi Lal And Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 15 October, 2014
Bench: Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38187 of 2010
Applicant :- Ganeshi Lal And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Ojha,Rajeev Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,S.K.Mishra,Sanjay Kumar.
And
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17291 of 2012
Applicant :- Satyveer Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shankar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate.
And
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6663 of 2004
Applicant :- Santveer
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sant Sharan Upadhyaya,(Mrs.) Sadhna Upadhyaya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocatae,A.C.Srivastava.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Heard Sri Shyam Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
As all these three applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relate to the same offence, the parties are also the same and the cases are connected to each other, these are being decided by a common order.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that criminal case against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 368 I.P.C. is pending since the year 2001, despite the fact that both the parties are living together as husband and wife since then and now they have two grown up children of about 12 and 10 years of age. He has submitted that police had submitted the chargesheet without getting the statement of prosecutrix being recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that this Court vide order dated 07.01.2002 has already held that the alleged kidnappee Smt. Santosh was major around 21 years of age on the date of occurrence.
In view of the aforesaid facts there appears no justification in keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed to quash the criminal proceedings.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has not disputed any of the aforesaid facts and he has no objection if the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Learned A.G.A. has also no objection in view of the aforesaid facts.
The Apex Court in a recent case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC, page 466 has quashed the proceedings under Section 307 I.P.C. and has held that quashment of proceedings depends on the facts and circumstances of the each case. In Para 29 of the judgment, the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for quashing the criminal proceedings and has laid down the law that the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Hon'ble Apex Court has held that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are non-compoundable. The Apex Court has directed that while exercising its power, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
Testing the facts of the present case on the touch stone of above mentioned guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that the facts of the present case are of such nature that if the proceedings of criminal cases are not quashed it would certainly cause injustice to the applicant. The parties are living together as husband and wife having grown up children.
Keeping in view of all these facts and circumstances of the case and in view of no objection from the side of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 all the three applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stand allowed and the proceedings of case no. 674 of 2004 (State Vs. Ganeshi Lal and others), under Sections 363, 366, 368 I.P.C., P.S. Hapur Dehat, District Ghaziabad, criminal case no. 4135 of 2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad and criminal case no. 1724 of 2003 (State Vs. Sri Pal and others) under Sections 364, 511, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Hapur Dehat, District Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 15.10.2014
S.Sharma
