Krishan Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118336

Court No. - 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9576 of 2020

Applicant :- Krishan Pal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Kumar Shukla,Kapil Dev Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 2 is also present.

¶8

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 734 of 2008, (State Vs Maharaj Deen and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 32 of 1994, under Sections 323, 504, 324 IPC, P.S. Mauaima, District Allahabad on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶9

The parties, out of their own free will, have settled their dispute amicably and in furtherance thereof, they have filed a compromise deed before the court below. Thereafter, this Court, vide order 27.07.2022, has sent the said compromise deed to the trial court with a direction to get the same verified and submit a report.

¶10

Learned counsel for the parties have not disputed the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they have filed compromise deed and the same has been verified by the trial Court, vide order dated 19.09.2022, kept on record of this case.

¶11

In the present case, the sections involved are Sections 323, 504, 324 IPC.

¶12

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the court below has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed and submitted his report dated 26.09.2022 to the extent that

¶13

the parties and contents of the compromise deed are genuine and they have entered into the compromise by freewill.

¶14

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

¶15

It is further contended by learned counsel for the parties that undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is 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 applicants 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.

¶16

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

¶17

No doubt, offence punishable under Section 324 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 734 of 2008, (State Vs Maharaj Deen and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 32 of 1994, under Sections 323, 504, 324 IPC, P.S. Mauaima, District Allahabad are hereby quashed.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.5.2023

¶23

Krishna/RavindraKSingh

¶24

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

Krishan Pal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Pal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikhil Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vishal Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amar Nath Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P.