Arvind Singh Parmar vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Arvind Singh Parmar vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the chargesheet dated 29.08.2018, the order of taking cognizance dated 20.12.2018 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3313 of 2018 (State Vs. Arvind Singh Parmar), arising out of Case Crime No.967 of 2018, pending before A.C.J.M. Court No.16, Allahabad.

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 29.08.2018, the order of taking cognizance dated 20.12.2018 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3313 of 2018 (State Vs. Arvind Singh Parmar), arising out of Case Crime No.967 of 2018, should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement/compromise between the parties.

Court's answer

The parties have amicably settled their dispute; the compromise was verified by the court concerned on 16.07.2024 and the fact of settlement was confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties, who jointly submitted that quashing the proceedings would be in the interest of justice.

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in mind the position of law (as laid down in Gian Singh and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia) and the facts and circumstances of the case, the chargesheet dated 29.08.2018, the order of taking cognizance dated 20.12.2018 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3313 of 2018 (State Vs. Arvind Singh Parmar), arising out of Case Crime No.967 of 2018, under Sections 286, 427 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, pending before A.C.J.M. Court No.16, Allahabad, are quashed.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to respondent no.2: if he feels he has been duped or betrayed, he may file a recall application explaining his reasons.obiter¶16
The parties are directed/permitted to file a copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) allowed an application under Section 482 (Case No. 10192 of 2024, Arvind Singh Parmar v. State of U.P. and Another). The parties had amicably settled their dispute; the compromise was verified by the court concerned on 16.07.2024 and appended to the petition, and the fact of settlement was confirmed and admitted by counsel for the opposite parties, who jointly submitted that quashing would be in the interest of justice. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 58) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, the Court quashed the chargesheet dated 29.08.2018, the order of taking cognizance dated 20.12.2018 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3313 of 2018 (State Vs. Arvind Singh Parmar), arising out of Case Crime No.967 of 2018 under Sections 286, 427 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, pending before A.C.J.M. Court No.16, Allahabad. Liberty was left to respondent no.2 to file a recall application if he felt duped or betrayed, and the parties were to file a copy of the order before the court concerned within two weeks.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87168

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10192 of 2024

Applicant :- Arvind Singh Parmar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Chauhan,Surendra Kumar Chaubey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Kant Tripathi,G.A.,Surya Prakash Dubey

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for parties.

The present application has been filed to quash chargesheet dated 29.08.2018 and order of taking cognizance dated 20.12.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3313 of 2018 (State Vs. Arvind Singh Parmar), arising out of Case Crime No.967 of 2018, under Sections 286, 427 IPC and 7 Criminal law Amendment Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. Court No.16, Allahabad.

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned court concerned on dated 16.07.2024 which has been appended with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for respondent no.2.

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.

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.

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.

Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, chargesheet dated 29.08.2018 and order of taking cognizance dated 20.12.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3313 of 2018 (State Vs. Arvind Singh Parmar), arising out of Case Crime No.967 of 2018, under Sections 286, 427 IPC and 7 Criminal law Amendment Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. Court No.16, Allahabad, are hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed .

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, respondent no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Vivek Kr.

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