Krishnapal and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2408 of 2025 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. Heard Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rahul Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to allow this application and to quash the entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 100784 of 2014 (State vs. Krishna Pal and others) arising out from the impugned summoning order dated

02.07.2013 in Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2012 under Sections 308, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut on the basis of compromise dated 21.10.2024. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have settled the dispute through compromise dated 15.5.2025 placed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 03.07.2025. The said compromise has been duly verified vide order dated 17.5.2025 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 02, Meerut. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of personal dispute between the applicants and the opposite party nos.2 and 3. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satya Narayan Gupta, Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rahul Singh Tomar Krishnapal And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) compromise between the parties and they do not propose to file the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 admits the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against the applicants, is quashed. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. 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." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat 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." 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. A482 No. 2408 of 2025 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. 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 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. In view of above, the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 100784 of 2014 (State vs. Krishna Pal and others) arising out of Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2012 under Sections 308, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut are hereby quashed. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. October 8, 2025 Puspendra A482 No. 2408 of 2025 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad