Allahabad High Court
Jagat Bahadur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100735
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27036 of 2011
Applicant :- Jagat Bahadur
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Kali Kant Mishra,M. A. Siddiqui
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Third supplementary affidavit preferred by learned counsel for applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and SriM. A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State.
3. Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred with a prayer to allow the instant application and stay/quash the entire proceedings of Case no. 5054 of 2008, State Vs. Manoj Kumar and another, arising out of case crime No. 278 of 2008, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Mauaima, District Allahabad, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the parties had entered into compromise on dated 11.01.2024 and the same has also been verified by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj vide order dated 31.01.2024 which is annexed as Annexure no. SA1 to the third supplementary affidavit and this fact has been endorsed by Sri M. A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Case no. 5054 of 2008, State Vs. Manoj Kumar and another, arising out of case crime No. 278 of 2008, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Mauaima, District Allahabad, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad against the applicant, is hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed.
10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within four weeks from today.
Order Date :- 30.5.2024
Shaswat
