Allowed

Smt. Jyoti Dharmani and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2023A482/12403/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 323, 452, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The Court found that since a settlement and compromise were reached between the parties, continuing the prosecution was futile, oppressive, and would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.02.2018 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3596 of 2016 against the applicants are hereby quashed.

Smt. Jyoti Dharmani and 7 Others Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204738

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12403 of 2018

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Jyoti Dharmani And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Tiwari,Kiran Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Pankaj Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the order dated 27.02.2018 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3596 of 2016 (Ashok Chawala vs. Smt. Jyoti Dharmani and others) , under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chhatta, District Agra pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-12th, Agra.

¶8

Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this case as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants are that the opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 25.07.2016 against the applicants, which was treated as a complaint case and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned to face the trial vide order dated 27.02.2018. Thereafter, the parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and a compromise application between the parties was moved on 02.03.2023 before the court below, which was directed to be verified by the concerned court below on 30.05.2023.

¶9

Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 30.05.2023, the

¶10

compromise between the parties concerned has been verified by the concerned court below on 18.07.2023, copy of the same is on record.

¶11

On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, therefore continuance of criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned chargesheet against the applicants after compromise between them would be a futile exercise and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶12

Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party No.2 has no grievance and has no objection if the Court quashes the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶13

After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that after compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned wants to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in personal dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of conviction gets lost.

¶14

The Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others AIR 2019

¶15

SC 1296 and Ramgopal and another Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 Supreme (SC) 529 after wholesome treatment has laid down guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of non-compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise, wherein quashing of proceeding of criminal cases which involved non compoundable offences has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is private in nature and does not have a serious impact on society.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court as mentioned above, I find that the case in hand does not have grave and wider social ramifications and the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties, therefore this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the end of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end.

¶17

In view of the above, order dated 27.02.2018 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3596 of 2016 (Ashok Chawala vs. Smt. Jyoti Dharmani and others) against the applicants are hereby quashed.

¶18

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.10.2023 Zafar

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Jyoti Dharmani and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyoti Dharmani and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Durgesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Chand Yadv and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Moushmi Baroy Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Another