Allahabad High Court
Narain Prajapati And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84544
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20559 of 2010
Applicant :- Narain Prajapati And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- S.P. Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Shiv Bahadur Yadav,Sonu Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and Ms. Archana Maurya, holding brief of Sri S.K. Tiwari, 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 summoning order dated 06.05.2010 as well as entire proceeding in Case No.253 of 2009 (Panchu v. Narain and Others) under Sections 392, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Jhansi, District Jhansi, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (DAA) Act, Jhansi.
3. Upon the instructions received on behalf of opposite party no. 2, Ms. Archana Maurya endorsed the compromise dated 16.03.2024 entered by the parties which has been appended along with the supplementary affidavit dated 21.03.2024 available at page no. 9 as Annexure no. SA1.
4. 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.
5. 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.
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. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the summoning order dated 06.05.2010 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 253 of 2009 (Panchu v. Narain and Others), under Sections 392, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Jhansi, District Jhansi, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (DAA) Act, Jhansi, are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.
9. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Akram
