Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 191408 (ALL)

SRIKANT TRIPATHI AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/15919/2025 · 2025-10-06

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15919 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Shiva Kant Dubey learned counsel for applicants, Shri Devashish Tripathi holding brief of Shri Naresh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred with a prayer to allow the instant application and stay and quash the entire proceedings of Case No.3328 of 2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi arising out of Case Crime No.218 of 2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC, Police Station Manjhanpur District Kaushambi as well as charge sheet dated 28.09.2013 and cognizance order dated 03.06.2014. 3. On the basis of verification report submitted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi on the compromise application dated 09.09.2025, entered between the parties which is appended along with Supplementary affidavit dated 16.06.2025. 4.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. 5. 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiva Kant Dubey, Surya Prakash Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Naresh Kumar Pandey, G.A. Srikant Tripathi And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceeding of Case No.3328 of 2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi arising out of Case Crime No.218 of 2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC, Police Station Manjhanpur District Kaushambi as well as charge sheet dated 28.09.2013 and cognizance order dated 03.06.2014, are hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, the present application under Section 528 BNSS stands allowed. 8. The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. October 7, 2025 Rakesh NA528 No. 15919 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad