Jyoti Dubey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Sri Ajay Singh Sengar holding brief of Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 19.12.2023 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A. Act) Jalaun at Orai as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No. 98 of 2023 (Prahlad Vs. Jyoti Dubey and others), Complaint Case No. 48 of 2023, under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun on the basis of compromise.

¶13

Pursuant to the order dated 02.05.2025, a communication dated 23.07.2025 has been forwarded by learned Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), Jalaun at Orai stating that the parties have settled the dispute through compromise dated 23.07.2025 and has been duly verified on 23.07.2025 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (D.A.A. Act), Jalaun at Oriai.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of property dispute between the applicants and the opposite party no.2. It is also argued that the parties have willingly entered into a settlement and not under duress or threat or coercion and are not interested in pursuing the matter pending in the Court concerned and, therefore, the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

¶15

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 admits the arguments of learned

¶16

A482 No. 41430 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against the applicants, is quashed.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶20

The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled.

¶21

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench Judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012)10 SCC 303, has held that "But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim."

¶22

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujara and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that "even in the non compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases."

¶23

Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending amongst them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the law as cited above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the Court to quash summoning order as well as entire proceedings.

¶24

The dispute appears to be purely civil in nature that has been mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.

¶25

The present application for quashing filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶26

A482 No. 41430 of 2024

¶27

3

¶28

Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, SLP (Crl.) No. 11642 of 2019 dated 02.09.2025.

¶29

Considering the fact that the alleged dispute arises out of the property, the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 98 of 2023 (Prahlad Vs. Jyoti Dubey and others), Complaint Case No. 48 of 2023, under Sections 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, are hereby quashed.

¶30

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

¶31

September 19, 2025 Puspendra

¶32

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jyoti Dubey and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Dubey and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases