Allahabad High Court
Abhishek @ Ajay And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88540
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8911 of 2012
Applicant :- Abhishek @ Ajay And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar,Shiv Raj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Lakshman Singh,Pankaj Sharma
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Pankaj Sharma, 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 entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 241 of 2011 (Vinod Vs. Mahendra and others), under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gohan, District Jalaun pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has been verified by Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun on 15.10.2022 which has been appended with the supplementary affidavit filed on dated 12.07.2023 by learned counsel for the applicant, this fact has also been ascertained by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
4. 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, 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 entire proceedings of complaint case No. Complaint Case No. 241 of 2011 (Vinod Vs. Mahendra and others), under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gohan, District Jalaun pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun is hereby quashed.
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 he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he 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 :- 15.5.2024
RPD
