Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 106436 (ALL)

RAHUL BANSAL AND ANOTHER v. State of U.P. AND ANOTHER

A482/37751/2024 · 2025-04-04

Saurabh Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49452 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37751 of 2024 Applicant :- Rahul Bansal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anubhav Sinha,G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State. 3. Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 7063 of 2024 (State vs. Rahul Bansal & another) arising out of Case Crime no. 261 of 2024 under sections 323/336/504/506 IPC & Section 25(9)/27/30 Arms Act, PS- Noida Sector-24, District- Gautam Budh Nagar as well as impugned charge sheet dated 28.08.2024 submitted against the applicant no. 1 in under sections 323/504/506 IPC & against the applicant no. 2 in under sections 323/336/504/506 IPC and Section 25(9)/27/30 Arms Act and impugned cognizance & summoning order dated 18.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 26.09.2024. 4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the parties had entered into compromise on dated 26.09.2024 and the same has also been verified by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 07.01.2025 which is annexed as Annexure no. 3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.03.2025 and this fact has been endorsed by Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 5. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and it has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise. However, from perusal of the records, it transpired that compromise has took place in pursuance to sections pertaining to IPC but so far as Section 25(9)/27/30 of Arms Act against applicant no. 2 is concerned the same has not been compromised by concerned authority. 6.A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble 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. 7. 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 proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, entire proceeding arising out of Criminal Case no. 7063 of 2024 (State vs. Rahul Bansal & another) arising out of Case Crime no. 261 of 2024 are hereby quashed only against applicant no. 1 in pursuance to sections 323/504/506 IPC and against applicant no. 2 in pursuance to sections 323/336/504/506 IPC. At the same time, learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar is hereby directed to proceed against applicant no. 2 only in pursuance to Section 25(9)/27/30 Arms Act. 9. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands partly allowed. 10. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad