Allowed

Jai Prakash and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024A482/22169/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a dispute, relying on the mutual settlement between the parties. The court held that continuing the trial would be futile and an abuse of process, adhering to precedents allowing quashing in private disputes settled amicably.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Criminal Case No.795 of 2023

Jai Prakash and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:116288

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22169 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jai Prakash And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jainendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.795 of 2023, State of U.P. Vs. Jai Prakash and others, arising out of Case Crime No.269 of 2023, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 20.3.2024 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 27.3.2024, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicants. He further contended that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicants and the same may be quashed.

¶10

Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement which is duly verified by the court concerned. It is further submitted that he would have no objection in case criminal proceedings are put to an end. He further submits that in view of settlement there is virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings.

¶11

Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a dispute; and there are no such over bearing circumstances for which the applicants ought to be prosecuted even after the parties has entered into a settlement.

¶12

Needless to observe that with the present stand of the parties in terms of their settlement, there is practically no chance of recording conviction, even if the case under the F.I.R. in question is put to trial. In other words, entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility. On the contrary, looking to the nature of dispute and the fact that the disputants have compromised and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed.

¶13

It would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.

¶14

In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the compromise dated 20.3.2024, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶15

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶16

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Bhaskar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jai Prakash and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash and Another 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

Satyaram vs State of Up

Smt Vimla and 3 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Premraj and 3 Others vs State of U.P.

Mohd Raza and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Babbu Sindhi@ Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandravati Devi vs State of Up