Allahabad High Court
Vinay Gupta And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 19 March, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:24276 Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2520 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinay Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Maurya,Dr.Pramod Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Sri Siddharth Dayal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Maurya, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhishek Singh, the learned Government Counsel and Sri Siddharth Dayal, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
3. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 02.06.2017, summoning order dated 19.07.2017 along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.27621 of 2017: State of U.P. Vs. Vinay Gupta and others, arising out of Case Crime No.158 of 2016, under Sections 420, 384, 506, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Aminabad, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.26, Lucknow on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at the compromise. Compromise entered into between the parties have been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the petition. The learned counsel for the parties have confirmed the terms of the compromise. Compromise has been verified by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Court No.26, Lucknow vide order dated 27.02.2024 in compliance of the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 No.2238 of 2022.
5. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is of private nature and it does not affect the public at large and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
6. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present petition is allowed and proceedings of impugned charge sheet dated 02.06.2017, summoning order dated 19.07.2017 along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.27621 of 2017: State of U.P. Vs. Vinay Gupta and others, arising out of Case Crime No.158 of 2016, under Sections 420, 384, 506, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Aminabad, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.26, Lucknow are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 19.3.2024 Ram.