Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Singh Gautam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:141003 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 152 of 2021 Appellant :- Mahendra Singh Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Prem Shankar Kushwaha Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant appeal has been filed to set-aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 18.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda in Special Criminal Case No.325 of 2020 (State vs. Mahendra Singh Gautam) under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5A of SC/ST Act arising out of Case Crime No.72 of 2020, P.S. Pailani, District- Banda as well as to stay the further proceedings of above-mentioned case pending in the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for appellant submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise by way of preferring a compromise affidavit dated 01.02.2021, which has been verified by the concerned court and the same is kept on record, this fact has been ascertained by learned counsel for opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that in compliance of earlier order dated 05.01.2024, the opposite party no.2 had also deposited the amount of Rs.75,000/- in account of "Social Welfare Fund" on 28.02.2024 and the same is brought on record by way of preferring compliance affidavit on behalf of the appellant.
4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.
5. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed in para 58 of the said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.
6. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692], Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc., the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceedings to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties.
7. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the entire proceedings of Special Criminal Case No.325 of 2020 (State vs. Mahendra Singh Gautam) under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5A of SC/ST Act arising out of Case Crime No.72 of 2020, P.S. Pailani, District- Banda, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda, is hereby quashed and the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 is hereby set-aside.
8. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed.
9. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the records kept on record preferred on behalf of the appellant. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, she may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.
10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.
Order Date :- 31.8.2024 Saif