Allahabad High Court
Niyaz Ahmad @ Bundu And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:91941
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1837 of 2003
Applicant :- Niyaz Ahmad @ Bundu And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Shishir Tandon
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Ajatshatru Pandey,Arun K.Singh-I,Avinash Tripathi
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2441 of 2002, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ist Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Bijnor.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that by earlier order of this Court, compromise was sent to learned court concerned for verification and thereafter vide order dated 13.12.2022, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor verified the compromised and the same order has been appended with the supplementary affidavit filed on dated 16.01.2023, this fact has also been ascertained by learned counsel for opposite party no.3.
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 proceedings 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 ofComplaint Case No.2441 of 2002, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ist Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Bijnor, is hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. 3. If at all, opposite party no. 3 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 :- 21.5.2024
Saif
