Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rukhsana And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90624
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31741 of 2013
Applicant :- Smt. Rukhsana And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- K.K. Arora
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Sunil Vashisth,Varinder Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Re: Crl. Misc.Recall/Restoration Application No.07 of 2022
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. By means of this application, the applicants sought recall of the order dated 06.09.2022, whereby the present Application/Petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the applicants, the cause shown for non appearance is sufficient to allow the application. Accordingly, the restoration application is allowed.
4. The order dated 06.09.2022 is hereby recalled and the Application/Petition is restored to its original number.
Order on Application/Petition
1. Heard Sri Dhruv Kumar Dhuriya, Advocate holding brief of Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.K. Sahu, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to stay and quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No.29 of 2013, Mohd. Umar Vs. Rukhasana and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Crime No.1852 of 2011, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Rampur, pending in the court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that both the parties have already entered into a compromise and the said fact has already been ascertained by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 while preferring counter affidavit.
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 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 entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.29 of 2013, Mohd. Umar Vs. Rukhasana and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Crime No.1852 of 2011, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Rampur, pending in the court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, 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 :- 20.5.2024
Radhika
