Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27010 (ALL)

AVANISH KUMAR MISHRA AND 4 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/7897/2025 · 2025-03-09

Vinod Diwakar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35761 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7897 of 2025 Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Mishra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dutta Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 26.5.2024 and cognizance order dated 9.7.2024, as well as charge sheet dated 8.4.2024 and cognizance order dated 30.4.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd Varanasi. Further, prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.482 of 2024, titled State v. Awanish Mishra and others and S.T. No.748 of 2024 titled State v. Saurabh Yadav, arising out of Case Crime No.43 of 2024, under sections 347, 323, 504, 506, 395, 412 & 34 IPC read with section 66E of I.T. Act, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi, pending before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi, on the basis of compromise deed dated 11.2.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and a compromise deed dated 11.02.2025 has been duly executed. It is submitted that in light of the compromise, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would only lead to unnecessary harassment of the applicants. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it was held that in cases arising out of personal disputes and where the parties have amicably settled the matter, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, the opposite party no.2 has no objection if the criminal proceedings against the applicants are quashed. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the compromise entered into between the parties, and submits that although the matter has been compromised, some of the offences alleged against the applicants are of serious nature, involving heinous offences and public wrong. It is submitted that such offences have a serious impact on society at large, and mere compromise between the parties cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings, especially when the offence involves public tranquility and public order. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the material on record, including the compromise deed, it is evident that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. However, it is also apparent that the offences alleged against the applicants are serious in nature, involving allegations of dacoity and public disorder, which have a far-reaching impact on the society as a whole. 7. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Supreme Court has categorically held that offences involving heinous and serious crimes, including those affecting public peace and tranquility, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the parties, as such offences are against the society at large. 8. Considering the gravity of the offences alleged and the social obligations of the Court to maintain public order and uphold the rule of law, this Court does not find any cogent ground to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings solely on the basis of compromise. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in mind the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Anil K. Sharma Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad