Allowed

Rahul Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2023A482/43539/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 363 and 366 IPC regarding a bigamy allegation. The court held that despite non-compoundability, the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC allow quashing based on a settlement to prevent futile judicial process.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of S.T. No. 467 of 2022 arising from Case Crime No. 0061 of 2022 are quashed.

Rahul Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43539 of 2022 Applicant :- Rahul Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla,Vijendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Niraj Kumar Sharma

¶3

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr N. K. Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and perused the material available on record.

¶5

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 467 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0061 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Mungra Badshahpur, District Jaunpur on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the contesting parties have buried their difference and disputes and therefore, there is no useful purpose to be served to keep the matter alive and pending. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the joint affidavit filed today regarding compromise arises between the contesting parties in which it is stated that both the parties has sorted out their differences and dispute out side the court. It is stated in paragraph no. 2 of the joint affidavit that the applicant and the victim have solemnized their marriage being major out of their free and sweet will on 19.03.2022 and after solemnization of marriage both are residing as husband and wife and they have jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error if the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

¶7

In the present case, the sections involved are Sections 363, 366 IPC.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case.

¶9

It is further contended by learned counsel for the parties that undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 363, 366 IPC are not compoundable, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this Court has power to accept the compromise. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the case of Ram Gopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh with Krishnappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 834. To which proposition, learned AGA has not disputed the said facts.

¶10

In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim. The view expressed in the said judgement has been affirmed by the Apex Court in

¶11

the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466 .

¶12

No doubt, offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 IPC is not compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

¶13

Therefore, in view of the above and considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Ram Gopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh with Krishnappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 834 as also considering the settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

¶14

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 467 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0061 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Mungra Badshahpur, District Jaunpur are hereby quashed.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.2.2023

¶17

RavindraKSingh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Brajesh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Dhir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Priyanka Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Rai and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fahim Ahmad @ Fahim Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Ram Sewak and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another