Ajay v. State of U.P

Court No. - 91 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43443 of 2023 Applicant :- Ajay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 17.6.2021 and cognizance order dated

13.7.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 446 of 2021 (State vs. Kasim and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 104 of 2021, under Sections 366 and 363 I.P.C., Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur and further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case has been made.

¶3It 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.

¶4On the other hand, learned AGA has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶5I 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.

¶6The 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 heinous and serious in nature as the matter relates to missing of daughter of informant. No injury has been received by either sides. 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.

¶7Since 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.

¶8In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶9The entire proceedings of Case No. 446 of 2021 (State vs. Kasim and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 104 of 2021, under Sections 366 and 363 I.P.C., Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur, against the applicant 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