Allahabad High Court
Rinku Singh And Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 28 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97275
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29818 of 2010
Applicant :- Rinku Singh And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Shankar Malviya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,D.C.Joshi
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Vikas Narayan Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajendra Singh, 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 charge-sheet No.4/2010 dated 06.04.2010 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1066/9 of 2010, State Vs. Rinku Singh and others, in Case Crime No.10 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Bhagatpur, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Moradabad.
3. The compromise, appended alongwith the supplementary affidavit, has been admitted by both the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
4. The vital aspect which has been submitted by Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that the girl who has been stated as a victim by the opposite party no.2, has already been married with applicant no.1- Rinku Singh and living a peaceful life being husband and wife.
5. The statement made by the learned counsel for the applicants has been seconded by Sri Vikas Narayan Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.
6. After hearing the rival submissions, there is hardly any point of contradiction over the issue of compromise and the peaceful living of the applicant and daughter of opposite party no.2 being a married couple, who are also having three children, there is hardly any necessity to pursue the matters from both the sides in shape of said case crime number.
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, entire proceedings of Case No.1066/9 of 2010, State Vs. Rinku Singh and others, in Case Crime No.10 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Bhagatpur, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Moradabad as well as the impugned chrage-sheet No.4/2010 dated 06.04.2010, are 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 :- 28.5.2024
Radhika
