Chandra Prakash Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Chandra Prakash Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 allowed; entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1022 of 2011 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash Chaudhary and another), arising out of Case Crime No.5005 of 2011, quashed; parties permitted to file copy of the order before the court concerned within two weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1022 of 2011 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash Chaudhary and another), arising out of Case Crime No.5005 of 2011, under Sections 304A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)VI of SC/ST Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12, Basti, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 02.09.2024 between the parties.

Court's answer

In view of the position of law (Gian Singh; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia) and the facts and circumstances of the case, including the amicable settlement between the parties evidenced by the compromise dated 02.09.2024 verified by the court concerned, the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1022 of 2011 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash Chaudhary and another), arising out of Case Crime No.5005 of 2011, under Sections 304A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)VI of SC/ST Act, P.S. Walterganj, District Basti, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12, Basti, are quashed.

Key takeaways

Since the order was passed after hearing the contesting parties, if opposite party no.2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, he may file a recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.obiter¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure – Quashing – Application u/s 482 – Compromise between parties – Entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1022 of 2011 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash Chaudhary and another), arising out of Case Crime No.5005 of 2011, under Sections 304A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)VI of SC/ST Act, P.S. Walterganj, District Basti, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12, Basti, quashed on the basis of compromise dated 02.09.2024, which stood verified by the learned court concerned and was confirmed by counsel for the opposite parties. Reliance placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 58: quashing permissible although offences are not compoundable where settlement renders continuation an exercise in futility and securing the ends of justice is the ultimate guiding factor) and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692] (special facts and special features justify quashing to encourage genuine settlement of disputes). Order passed after hearing contesting parties; opposite party no.2 granted liberty to file recall application if he feels duped or betrayed; parties to file copy of the order before the court concerned within two weeks. Application allowed (Allahabad HC, Saurabh Srivastava, J., September 4, 2025).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40671 of 2024

Chandra Prakash Chaudhary And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pradeep Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 77

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for parties.

The present application has been filed to quash entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1022 of 2011 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash Chaudhary and another), arising out of Case Crime No.5005 of 2011, under Sections 304A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)VI of SC/ST Act, P.S. Walterganj, District Basti, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12, Basti on the basis of compromise dated 02.09.2024.

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that compromise has already been preferred and the same has also been verified by learned court concerned which has been appended with this petition, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite party 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

A482 No. 40671 of 2024

2

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, entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1022 of 2011 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash Chaudhary and another), arising out of Case Crime No.5005 of 2011, under Sections 304A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)VI of SC/ST Act, P.S. Walterganj, District Basti, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.12, Basti, 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, opposite party 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.

September 4, 2025 Vivek Kr.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

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