HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37716 of 2014 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Sri M.K. Maurya, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel, Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3581 of 2010 (Jitendra Mani Tripathi and another vs. State of U.P and anthers), under Sections 419, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First, Gorakhpur. 3. Pursuant to the prayer made by learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, for quashing the aforesaid complainant case pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur as well as summoning order dated 16.05.2011 passed by the aforesaid court. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that the applicant is complainant in the present case. The applicants and opposite party no. 2 have been amicably settled their dispute outside the court and in order to remove the bitterness, in relation, now the opposite party no. 2 is ready to get the complaint as well as entire proceedings pursuant to impugned complaint case be quashed and the above noted application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be allowed. This fact has been brought by opposite party no. 2 byway of an application dated 04.08.2025. 5. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. At this stage, learned counsels further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nishant Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Adya Prasad Tewari, S.S. Tripathi Jitendra Mani Tripathi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582. 6. In Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat & another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, after referring the various precedents on the subject, summarized the broad principles relating to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code as under:- "16.4. While the inherent poser of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated." 6. On the other hand, learned AGA has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court is quashed. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record. 8. In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed. 9. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the present case. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the offence is not of serious nature as the matter relates to offence under Sections 419, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C. of I.P.C. and there is no serious injury to either side and the matter has now been amicably settled between them. As such, looking to the A482 No. 37716 of 2014 2 facts and circumstances of the case, no mental depravity is involved in the case. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts. 10. Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion. 11. In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 12. The entire proceedings of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3581 of 2010 (Jitendra Mani Tripathi and another vs. State of U.P and anthers), under Sections 419, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First, Gorakhpur, against the applicants are quashed in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. October 14, 2025 v.k.updh. A482 No. 37716 of 2014 3 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad