Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Kumar Dhaturaha Alias Pappu ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57825
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40389 of 2024
Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Dhaturaha Alias Pappu And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Sunder Mishra
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated 26.09.2020 and order of taking cognizance dated 28.09.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3235/IX of 2020 (State Vs. Bachcha Dhaturaha and others), arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Karwi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot on the basis of compromise.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned court concerned on dated 09.01.2025 which has been appended with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for respondent 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 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, chargesheet dated 26.09.2020 and order of taking cognizance dated 28.09.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3235/IX of 2020 (State Vs. Bachcha Dhaturaha and others), arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Karwi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, respondent 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 :- 18.4.2025
Vivek Kr.
