Allahabad High Court
Rahul Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39785 of 2017
Applicant :- Rahul Gupta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 145 of 2010, arising out Case Crime No. 295 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3(i)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chandausi, District Moradabad against the applicant in the court of Juvenile Court, Moradabad, with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the main accused Surendra Singh @ Satendra Singh filed an application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. being Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 29601 of 2010 (Surendra Singh @ Satendra Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and the compromise has taken place between Surendra Singh @ Satendra Singh and the informant-Smt. Sudha Rani. He further submits that the allegation of abduction and offence under Section 376 I.P.C. etc. which was levelled, has been quashed by the order dated 15.05.2017, which is quoted below:
"Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of O.P. no.2 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.R. Bhushan, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Application u/s 482 CrPC has been filed for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 2855 of 2010 under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC read with section 3 (1) (x) & (xii) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Chaudausi, District Moradabad pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate - I, Moradabad.
In pursuance of order dated 27.4.2017, applicant no.1 Surendra alias Satendra Singh and opposite party no.2 Smt. Sudha Rani along with her daughter Jyoti Rani are present in person and they are identified by their respective counsel.
It is jointly submitted by both the parties i.e. applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 that all their disputes have been resolved and applicant no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2 both are happily married and living together with love and affection and opposite party no.2 does not wish to proceed with the criminal case initiated on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by her. A joint affidavit is already on record.
Learned counsel for O.P. no.2 does not dispute the authenticity of the compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since parties have settled their dispute, therefore, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be allowed and the proceedings pending before the Magistrate concerned be quashed in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment rendered in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303; Gian Singh Versus State of U.P., (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675; B.S. Joshi and others Versus State of Haryana and another and in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582; Madan Mohan Abbot Versus State of Punjab.
Opposite party no.2 states that she has no objection if the proceedings pending before the Magistrate concerned be quashed in the light of settlement acted upon between the parties.
In all the aforesaid cases the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial disputes and it is not related to a heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.
The instant dispute is of a purely personal nature. Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled, it is futile to permit continuation of the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time, if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion. The compromise has been acted upon. In these circumstances, there is no point in permitting the proceedings before the trial court to continue any further without any hope of a result in favour of the prosecution.
Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 2855 of 2010 under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC read with section 3 (1) (x) & (xii) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Chaudausi, District Moradabad pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate - I, Moradabad are quashed."
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is co-accused in the said case whereas the proceedings in respect of the main accused, namely, Surendra Singh @ Satendra Singh has been quashed, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be extended benefit of the said judgment.
In view of the fact that the entire proceedings in respect of the main accused has been quashed, the applicant is also entitled to be granted the same benefit. Consequently, the application is allowed. The entire proceedings in respect of Case No. 145 of 2010, arising out Case Crime No. 295 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3(i)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chandausi, District Moradabad against the applicant, in the court of Juvenile Court, Moradabad, are quashed.
Order Date :- 4.7.2022
Arun K. Singh
