Smt. Mukesh Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 91 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12890 of 2017 Applicant :- Smt. Mukesh Devi And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Sinha,Adarsh Srivastava,Mahesh Sharma,Reena Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Rai Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the state.

¶2This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge sheet dated 12.12.2011 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1029 of 2013 (State vs. Smt. Mukesh Devi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 371 of 2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar and further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case has been made.

¶3Pursuant to order dated 27.4.2017 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the parties appeared before the court below for verification of compromise, who were duly identified by their counsel's, while verifying the compromise / settlement dated

10.4.2017.

¶4It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab,

(2008) 4 SCC 582.

¶5On the other hand, learned AGA has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶6I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

¶7In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.

¶8The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the present case. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the offence is not of serious nature as the matter relates to offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and the matter has now been amicably settled between them. As such, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no mental depravity is involved in the case. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.

¶9Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.

¶10In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶11The entire proceedings of Case No. 1029 of 2013 (State vs. Smt. Mukesh Devi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 371 of 2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar, against the applicant s are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 A.P. Pandey High Court of Judicature at Allahabad