Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Kumar Singh And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82105
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26064 of 2014
Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Singh And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Prasad Mathur
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ajeet Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 24.05.2014 passed by ACJM-II, Jaunpur and further direction be issued to the concerned court to allow the withdrawal of Case No.503 of 2009 (Sandhya Singh Vs. Mahesh Singh and others), under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jalalpur, District Jaunpur.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that both the parties have already entered into a compromise which has been appended with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
4. 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 has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.
5. A three-Judge Bench of the 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.
6. 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.
7. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 24.05.2014 passed by ACJM-II, Jaunpur, is hereby quashed and the concerned court is hereby directed to allow the withdrawal of Case No.503 of 2009 (Sandhya Singh Vs. Mahesh Singh and others), under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, .
8. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed.
9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2. 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.
10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
Vivek Kr.
