Allahabad High Court
Doctor Ram Kumar Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79322
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23201 of 2015
Applicant :- Doctor Ram Kumar Yadav And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- D.N. Yadav,C.P. Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of applicants is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri C.P. Pal, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Sudhanshu Kumar holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State.
3. Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred with a prayer to allow the instant application and stay/quash the proceeding/charge sheet of Case no. 6397 of 2015, arising out of Crime no. 649 of 2014 under Section 323, 504, 506, 354Kh and added Section 308/498A IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the parties had entered into compromise on dated 29.2.2020 and the same has also been verified by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi vide order dated 16.04.2024 which is annexed as Annexure no. SA1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.04.2024 and this fact has been endorsed by Sri Sudhanshu Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
5. The present matter is related to matrimonial dispute. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and it has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.
6.A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 58 of the said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.
7. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Case no. 6397 of 2015, arising out of Crime no. 649 of 2014 under Section 323, 504, 506, 354Kh and added Section 308/498A IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi as well as charge sheet in the said case, are hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed.
10. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the affidavit filed by the applicants. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, she may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.
11. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
Shaswat
