Allahabad High Court
Mahipal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177387
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18216 of 2024
Mahipal Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Mukesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated 19.11.2022 and order of taking cognizance dated 05.12.2022 passed as well as entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.835 of 2022 (State Vs. Mahipal Singh), arising out of Case Crime No.118 of 2022, under Sections 465, 509 IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act and Section 67-b of I.T. Act, P.S. Ayana, District Auraiya, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Auraiya.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned court concerned on dated 12.08.2024 which has been appended with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite party 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 19.11.2022 and order of taking cognizance dated 05.12.2022 passed as well as entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.835 of 2022 (State Vs. Mahipal Singh), arising out of Case Crime No.118 of 2022, under Sections 465, 509 IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act and Section 67-b of I.T. Act, P.S. Ayana, District Auraiya, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Auraiya, 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, opposite party no. 2 feels that she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, she 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.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
October 6, 2025
Vivek Kr.
