Guddu and Another Vs State of U.P.

This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 4011 of 2018, arising out of case crime No. 637 of 1995, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the dispute has been settled between the parties and the victim has solemnized marriage with applicant No.1 and they have been living as husband and wife for last 28 years along with seven children. Applicant No.2 is the mother of applicant No.1. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the victim Smt. Jarina @ Jaiya, who has died in the year 2021. It is further submitted that the victim does not want to proceed any further.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that vide order dated 14.6.2024, a direction was given to the learned Trial Court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned Trial Court has verified the contents of compromise vide order dated 24.6.2024.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected

¶13

A482 No. 19808 of 2024

¶14

2

¶15

between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court below.

¶16

In pursuance of the order dated 14.6.2024 of this Court, A.C.J.M., Bareilly has submitted a report dated 24.6.2024, which shows that the compromise entered between the parties has been verified. A copy of the verified compromise has been annexed with the report.

¶17

This is a unique case where charge sheet has been filed under Sections 363, 366 IPC against the applicants for abducting the victim Smt. Jarina @ Jaiya from the lawful guardianship of the first informant and her family. As the victim and applicant No.1 have solemnized marriage about 28 years ago and are living happily as husband and wife, having seven children. Therefore, there are weak chances of conviction in this.

¶18

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the parties do not wish to pursue the case any further, the dispute is essentially of a private nature and has no wider social impact. Since it has been mutually settled between the parties by way of a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the matter further.

¶20

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 4011 of 2018, arising out of case crime No. 637 of 1995, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly, is hereby quashed.

¶21

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)

¶22

May 6, 2026

¶23

Vandana

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Guddu and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu and Another v. State of U.P.

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

Lakhami Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubham Pandey and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubham Pandey and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Anwar Vs State of U.P. and Another