Harish Chandra and Others v. State of U.P.And Another

Court No. - 88 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25225 of 2008 Applicant :- Harish Chandra And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Shukla,Arun Kumar Bajpai,Ramesh Kumar Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1 and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.

¶2This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 20.03.2008 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 10 of 2008, under Sections 392, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Airwa Katra, District Auraiya pending in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), Auraiya on the basis of compromise between the parties concerned.

¶3Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this case as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage of daughter of applicant no.1 with applicant no.4 (son of opposite party no.2) was solemnized in the year 2001. Since the opposite party no.2 was harassing daughter of applicant no.1, therefore, she had lodged a complaint against the opposite party no.2, his wife and daughter, in which they were summoned on 14.03.2008 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. to face trial. Therefore, in counter blast, opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint on 08.02.2008, in which applicants were summoned on 20.03.2008 to face trial. This Court vide order dated 26.05.2023 granted interim protection to the applicants but during the pendency of this application parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and a compromise application dated 20.03.2023 has also been filed before the concerned Court below. The trial Court vide order dated 07.06.2023 pursuant to order of this Court dated 26.05.2023 verified the compromise and the same has been brought on record.

¶4On the strength of aforesaid facts it is submitted that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, therefore, aforesaid criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶5Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶6After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that after settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned wants to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in a matrimonial dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of conviction gets lost.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another

(2003) 1 SCC (Cri) 848 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296, this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the ends of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties are brought to an end.

¶8In view of the above, the criminal proceedings against the applicants with regard to aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶9In the conspectus of the aforesaid, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above. Order Date :- 11.12.2023 Anurag/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad