Allahabad High Court
Lalaram And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 June, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:97247
Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17848 of 2025
Applicant :- Lalaram And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Pandey,Pushpendra Kumar,Ramdhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. Present application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred with prayer to quash the entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 3.2.2016 and cognizance order dated 10.3.2016 passed in Criminal Case no. 282 of 2016 (State vs. Lalaram and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 0606 of 2015 under sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Dibaee, District Bulandshahar pending in court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anupshahar, Bulandshahar.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the parties had entered into compromise and the same has also been verified by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anupshahar, Bulandshahar vide order dated 07.10.2022 which is annexed as Annexure no. 4 to the affidavit.
5. Learned AGA showed no objection to aforesaid contention of learned counsel for applicants.
6. From perusal of records, it transpires that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and it has been 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.
7.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.
8. 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.
9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 3.2.2016 in Criminal Case no. 282 of 2016 (State vs. Lalaram and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 0606 of 2015 under sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Dibaee, District Bulandshahar, is hereby quashed, only in respect of applicants herein namely Lalaram, Bhupedra, Mahendra Singh and Virendra Singh.
10. Accordingly, the present application u/s 528 BNSS of the Code stands allowed.
11. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.
12. It is made clear that if, in any case the averments or the facts narrated above are otherwise, opposite party no. 2 will be at liberty to seek recall of the instant order.
Order Date :- 17.6.2025
Shaswat
