Allahabad High Court
Richin Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 January, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19358 of 2020
Applicant :- Richin Gupta And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Raj Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in prayer clause during the course of the day.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicants in Court today, which is taken on record.
A short counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 in Court today, which is also taken on record.
Heard Sri Jai Raj Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Kavita Tomar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2248 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 218 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Rail Bazar, District - Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Div.)-I, Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are jeth and jethani of opposite party no. 2 and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 has expired on 03.06.2020 as stated in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. It has been further submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and on the basis of the settlement between the parties, entire criminal proceedings have been quashed by order dated 17.06.2020 passed in an application U/s 482 No. 10424 of 2020 filed by Paritosh Gupta (husband of opposite party no. 2) in Criminal Case No. 2248 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar, copy of which order has been annexed as Annexure - 5 to this application.
It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties was purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. It is further argued that there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries and at present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
Learned counsel for the parties state that they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
(i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675;
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1;
(iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;
(v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;
In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the 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. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been expatiated in detail.
From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise has been verified between the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2248 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 218 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Rail Bazar, District - Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Div.)-I, Kanpur Nagar, is hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021
Priya
