Allahabad High Court
Ram Pravsh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:9986 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4370 of 2018 Applicant :- Ram Pravsh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandra Kumar Singh, advocate holding brief of Sri Mayank, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2005 (State vs. Ram Pravsh) arising out of Case Crime No. 714 of 2001 under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kasya, District Kushinagar, in light of compromise between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the compromise has already been entered between the parties on 01.08.2017 and the same has been verified by the court concerned on 03.05.2018, therefore, the present case be finally decided.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicant. He further contended that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the criminal case against the applicant and the same may be quashed.
5. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into settlement which is duly verified by the court concerned. It is further submitted that he would have no objection in case criminal proceedings are put to an end. He further submits that in view of settlement there is virtually no chance of any conviction being recorded in the criminal proceedings.
6. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings in the present case had essentially been an outcome of a dispute between family members; and there are no such over bearing circumstances for which the applicant ought to be prosecuted even after the parties has entered into a settlement. Needless to observe that with the present stand of the parties in terms of their settlement, there is practically no chance of recording conviction, even if the case under the F.I.R. in question is put to trial. In other words, entire exercise of trial would only be an exercise in futility. On the contrary, looking to the nature of dispute and the fact that the disputants, being the family members, have compromised and want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would be in the interest of justice that criminal proceedings in question are quashed.
7. It would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end.
8. In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the compromise dated 01.08.2017, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
9. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed against the applicant-Rampravsh.
12. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 19.1.2024 S.Prakash