# Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1234
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 2941 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajai Kumar Srivastava- I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pravin-kumar-singh-pravin-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49848
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Application under Section
482-quashing
of
proceedings
under
Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC and
Sections 3/4 POCSO Act- applicant and
victim married each other living happilyoffence concerned is not a private dispute-
collective wrong against the society-
power of quashing of criminal proceedings
should be exercised sparingly- quashing of
a case under Section 376 I.P.C. read with
Sections 3/4 POCSO Act on the basis of
compromise entered between parties-
legally,
not
permissible-Application
dismissed.

HELD:
4 All. Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1235
It is no doubt true that the power of quashing
of criminal proceedings should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too
in rarest of the rare cases and it was not
justified for the Court in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint and that the inherent powers do
not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court
to act according to its whims and fancies.

Recently, a coordinate Bench of this Court in
Application U/s 482 No.8514 of 2023 titled as
Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and another, has
also held that the criminal proceedings under
Section 376 I.P.C. and POCSO Act cannot be
quashed on the basis of compromise entered
into between the accused and the victim.

Thus, having regard to the aforesaid settled
legal position, quashing of a case under Section
376 I.P.C. read with Sections 3/4 POCSO Act on
the basis of compromise entered between the
present accused/ applicant no.1 and opposite
party no.2, the victim, is not legally permissible.
Therefore, the instant application lacks merit
and is liable to be dismissed.

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being driven with reasonable care or that
there is equal negligence on the part the
other side."

emphasis added

9. The accident took place because
of the use of vehicle which is similar to
the cases of Shivaji Dayanua Patil
(Supra) & Renu Devi (Supra). The
provision of Section 165 of Motor
Vehicles Act,1955 does not define the
term accident and, therefore, judgment in
Renu Devi (Supra) pressed into service
would be helpful to the Court. The
principle of res-ipsa loquitor is also
required
to
be
invoked
and
the
submission of learned counsel for the
appellant that there is remoteness of
damage, cannot be accepted.

10. This takes this Court to this
issue of driving license of the driver
being not valid and electricity company
being not made party. Here the decision
in Pappu and others (Supra) will come
to aid of the appellant as it was for the
owner and driver to prove that the vehicle
was being plied by the driver having
valid driving license and only after the
driving license is filed, the Insurance
Company would be under an obligation to
prove otherwise.

11. As far as compensation is
concerned,
it
cannot
be
said
that
compensation awarded is on higher side.
Rather the Tribunal has not considered to
grant any amount under the head of
future loss of income.

12. In view of the above, the appeal
is
partly
allowed
qua
owner. The
Insurance Company would be at liberty to
recover the amount deposited from the
owner of the vehicle as owner has failed
to produce any documentary evidence so
as to show that the driver was having
license to drive the said vehicle.

13. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Tribunal forthwith. The
amount kept in fixed deposit be disbursed
to the claimants with interest accrued, if
the same has not yet been disbursed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1234
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA- I, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2941 of 2023

Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar &
Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Sri Ashish Kumar
Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law- Application under Section
482-quashing
of
proceedings
under
Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC and
Sections 3/4 POCSO Act- applicant and
victim married each other living happilyoffence concerned is not a private dispute-
collective wrong against the society-
power of quashing of criminal proceedings
should be exercised sparingly- quashing of
a case under Section 376 I.P.C. read with
Sections 3/4 POCSO Act on the basis of
compromise entered between parties-
legally,
not
permissible-Application
dismissed.

HELD:
4 All. Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1235
It is no doubt true that the power of quashing
of criminal proceedings should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too
in rarest of the rare cases and it was not
justified for the Court in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint and that the inherent powers do
not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court
to act according to its whims and fancies.

Recently, a coordinate Bench of this Court in
Application U/s 482 No.8514 of 2023 titled as
Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and another, has
also held that the criminal proceedings under
Section 376 I.P.C. and POCSO Act cannot be
quashed on the basis of compromise entered
into between the accused and the victim.

Thus, having regard to the aforesaid settled
legal position, quashing of a case under Section
376 I.P.C. read with Sections 3/4 POCSO Act on
the basis of compromise entered between the
present accused/ applicant no.1 and opposite
party no.2, the victim, is not legally permissible.
Therefore, the instant application lacks merit
and is liable to be dismissed.

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335

2. Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs St. (NCT of
Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513

3.Satish Kumar Jatav Vs St. of U.P., 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 488

4. Ramveer Upadhyay Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2022
SC 2044

5. Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Pun. & anr.
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466

6. St. of M.P. Vs Madanlal reported in (2015) 7
SCC 681

7. Shimbhu Vs St. of Har. reported in (2014) 13
SCC 318
8.Daxaben Vs St. of Guj. & ors. reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 936

9.Application U/s 482 No.8514 of 2023 titled as
Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. and another

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav,
Advocate has put in appearance on behalf
of opposite party No.2 by filing his
vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken
on record.

2. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the
State, Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned
counsel for opposite party No.2 and
perused the entire record.

3. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
accused/ applicants for quashing the entire
proceedings of S. T. No.20 of 2014 "State
vs. Pravin Kumar Singh and others" arising
out of Case Crime No.345 of 2013, under
Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
3/4 POCSO Act, relating to Police Station
Ashiyana, District Lucknow, pending in the
Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO
Act, Lucknow as well as impugned charge
sheet no.35 of 2014, dated 15.02.2014
submitted against the applicant no.1 under
Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
3/4 POCSO Act and the applicant nos.2
and 3 under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. by the
Investigating Officer in the aforesaid case
crime in the light of compromise took place
between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
has submitted that a false first information
report came to be lodged against the
accused/ applicants, who are innocent and
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have been falsely implicated in this case.
His further submission is that in fact, the
first information report came to be lodged
at the behest of opposite party no.2 only
because of the fact that the present
applicant no.1 was acquainted with the
opposite party no.2, victim. His next
submission is that the victim, in her
statement recorded under Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution
case. However, during the pendency of
aforesaid criminal case, the applicants and
opposite party no.2 have settled their
dispute amicably.

5. His next submission is that, in fact,
the accused/ applicant no.1 and the
opposite party no.2, victim have married
and are living happily together as husband
and wife. Therefore, the impugned criminal
proceeding deserves to be quashed.

6. His further submission is that
having regard to the fact that the accused/
applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, the
victim are living together as husband and
wife, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping the impugned criminal proceeding
pending against the accused/ applicants.
The chance of clinching conviction, in the
light of aforesaid fact, is remote and bleak.

7. Sri Subhash Chandra Verma, the
learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has
admitted the fact that the opposite party
no.2, victim has married with the applicant
no.1 and they are living happily together as
husband and wife.

8. Per contra, Sri Anurag Verma,
learned
A.G.A.
for
the
State
has
vehemently
opposed
the
prayer
by
submitting that Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been
enacted by the Legislature for prevention
and protection of children as defined in the
said Act. His further submission is that
admittedly charge sheet has been submitted
against the present applicant no.1 under
Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
3/4 POCSO Act and agaisnt the applicant
nos.2 and 3 under Sections 504 and 506
I.P.C.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State has
also submitted that the victim was a child
on the date of occurrence. Therefore, no
compromise between such victim and the
accused/ applicants is permissible in law.
Therefore,
the
present
application
is
misconceived, which is liable to be
dismissed.

10. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph no.102 has
held as under:-

"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant provisions
of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases
by way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently
channelised
and
inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in
the
first
information
report
or
the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
4 All. Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1237
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the Act concerned (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution
and
continuance
of
the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v.
State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 513 in para nos.16, 17 and 18 has held
as under:-

"16. The proposition of law as set
out above makes it abundantly clear that
the Court should be slow to grant the relief
of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial
stage, when the factual controversy is in
the
realm
of
possibility
particularly
because of the legal presumption, as in this
matter. What is also of note is that the
factual defence without having to adduce
any
evidence
need
to
be
of
an
unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether
disprove the allegations made in the
complaint.

17. The consequences of scuttling
the criminal process at a pre-trial stage
can be grave and irreparable. Quashing
proceedings at preliminary stages will
result in finality without the parties having
had an opportunity to adduce evidence and
the consequence then is that the proper
forum i.e., the trial Court is ousted from
weighing the material evidence. If this is
allowed, the accused may be given an unmerited advantage in the criminal process.
Also because of the legal presumption,
when the cheque and the signature are not
disputed by the appellant, the balance of
convenience at this stage is in favour of the
complainant/prosecution, as the accused
will have due opportunity to adduce
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
defence evidence during the trial, to rebut
the presumption.

18. Situated thus, to non-suit the
complainant, at the stage of the summoning
order, when the factual controversy is yet
to be canvassed and considered by the trial
court will not in our opinion be judicious.
Based upon a prima facie impression, an
element of criminality cannot entirely be
ruled out here subject to the determination
by the trial Court. Therefore, when the
proceedings are at a nascent stage,
scuttling of the criminal process is not
merited."

12. It is no doubt true that the power
of quashing of criminal proceedings should
be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in rarest of the
rare cases and it was not justified for the
Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the inherent powers do
not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the
Court to act according to its whims and
fancies.

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Satish Kumar Jatav vs. State of
U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488 has held
that the ground that "no useful purpose will
be served by prolonging the proceedings of
the case" cannot be a good ground and/or a
ground at all to quash the criminal
proceedings when a clear case was made
out for the offence alleged. Likewise in
Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P.,
AIR 2022 SC 2044 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised
for asking. In exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does
not examine the correctness of the
allegations in a complaint/F.I.R. except in
exceptionally rare cases where it is patently
clear that the allegations are frivolous or do
not disclose any offence. Entertaining a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an
interlocutory stage itself might ultimately
result in miscarriage of justice.

14. \So far as the question of quashing of
criminal proceeding of S.T. No.20 of 2014
"State vs. Pravin Kumar Singh and others"
arising out of Case Crime No.345 of 2013,
under Sections 376, 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and 3/4 POCSO Act, is concerned, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Narinder Singh and others
vs. State of Punjab and another reported in
(2014) 6 SCC 466, has specifically held that the
matter under Section 376 I.P.C. is also such an
offence, which, though committed in respect of
a particular victim, cannot be termed to be a
private dispute between the parties. It has
serious adverse societal effect. Therefore, any
proceeding on the basis of alleged compromise
of the accused vis-a-vis the victim cannot be
quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Madanlal reported in
(2015) 7 SCC 681 while repelling the acquittal
on the basis of compromise in the matter
pertaining to Sections 376 read with 511 I.P.C.,
has placed reliance upon principles laid down
by three-Judge Bench in Shimbhu vs. State of
Haryana reported in (2014) 13 SCC 318.

15. This principal of law also came to
be reiterated recently by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat
and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 936 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Paragraphs No.34, 38, 47 and 49
has held as under:-

"34. In Inder Mohan Goswami v.
State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, this
Court observed:--
4 All. Pravin Kumar Singh @ Pravin Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1239

"46. The court must ensure that
criminal prosecution is not used as an
instrument of harassment or for seeking
private vendetta or with an ulterior motive
to pressurise the accused. On analysis of
the aforementioned cases, we are of the
opinion that it is neither possible nor
desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that
would govern the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the
High Courts under Section 482 CrPC
though wide has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only when it
is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in the statute itself and in the
aforementioned cases. In view of the settled
legal position, the impugned judgment
cannot be sustained."

38. However, before exercising
its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
to quash an FIR, criminal complaint
and/or criminal proceedings, the High
Court, as observed above, has to be
circumspect and have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
or serious crimes, which are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on
society cannot be quashed on the basis of
a compromise between the offender and
the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes
like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and
even abetment to commit suicide are
neither private nor civil in nature. Such
crimes are against the society. In no
circumstances
can
prosecution
be
quashed on compromise, when the offence
is serious and grave and falls within the
ambit of crime against society.

47. In State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, a
three-Judge Bench discussed the earlier
judgments of this Court and laid down the
following principles:--

"15. Considering the law on the
point and the other decisions of this Court
on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is
observed and held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal
proceedings
for
the
noncompoundable offences under Section 320
of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the
civil character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes and when the parties have
resolved
the
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact
on society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not
to be exercised for the offences under the
special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim
and the offender;

15.4. Offences under Section 307
IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the
individual
alone,
and
therefore,
the
criminal proceedings for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc.
which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves.
However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention
of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge
is framed under this provision. It would be
open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC
is there for the sake of it or the prosecution
has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by
the nature of injury sustained, whether such
injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts
of the body, nature of weapons used, etc.
However, such an exercise by the High
Court would be permissible only after the
evidence is collected after investigation and
the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not
permissible when the matter is still under
investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate
conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the
decision of this Court in Narinder Singh
[(2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri)
54] should be read harmoniously and to be
read as a whole and in the circumstances
stated hereinabove;

15.5. While exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal
proceedings
in
respect
of
noncompoundable offences, which are
private in nature and do not have a serious
impact on society, on the ground that there
is a settlement/compromise between the
victim and the offender, the High Court is
required to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused,
namely,
whether
the
accused
was
absconding and why he was absconding,
how he had managed with the complainant
to enter into a compromise, etc."

(emphasis supplied)

49. In exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does
not examine the correctness of the
allegation in the complaint except in
exceptionally rare cases where it is
patently clear that the allegations are
frivolous or do not disclose any offence."

16. Recently, a coordinate Bench of
this Court in Application U/s 482 No.8514
of 2023 titled as Om Prakash vs. State of
U.P. and another, has also held that the
criminal proceedings under Section 376
I.P.C. and POCSO Act cannot be quashed
on the basis of compromise entered into
between the accused and the victim.

17. This Court is also able to notice
that the fact, that the case under
Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 can be compromised
between the applicants and the opposite
party no.2, victim is also engaging the
attention of Hon'ble the Apex Court in
Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) No(s).253
of 2022 "Ramji Lal Bairwa and
another vs. State of Rajasthan and
another".

18. Thus, having regard to the
aforesaid settled legal position, quashing of
a case under Section 376 I.P.C. read with
Sections 3/4 POCSO Act on the basis of
compromise entered between the present
accused/ applicant no.1 and opposite party
no.2, the victim, is not legally permissible.
Therefore, the instant application lacks
merit and is liable to be dismissed.

19. With the aforesaid observations/
directions, the instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
----------
4 All. Ankit Saxena & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1241
(2023) 4 ILRA 1241
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA- I, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 3119 of 2023

Ankit Saxena & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Manish Bajpai. Sri Pradeep Kumar
Maurya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Section
482
CrPC-
Quashing of criminal proceedings between
the
parties-
dispute
arising
out
of
matrimonial discord- private in natureguidelines laid down for quashing of
criminal
proceedings
-
overwhelming
element of private dispute-no heinous
offence
involved-such
criminal
proceedings may be quashed-application
allowed.

HELD:
Adverting to the facts of this case, it is not
disputed that the present first information report
was
an
outcome
of
matrimonial
dispute
between the parties i.e. opposite party No.2 and
the applicants, which is an overwhelming
element of a private dispute. Therefore, having
regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rangappa Javoor vs. The
State of Karnataka and another reported in
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74 and Jasmair Singh and
another vs. State of Haryana and another
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 73 in respect of
quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise entered into between the parties
and considering the aforesaid overall facts and
circumstances of the present case, submissions
made by counsel for parties and upon the
perusal of material on record, it appears that
during pendency of the present application,
parties have already settled their dispute
voluntarily
and
amicably.
Compromise
so
entered into by parties have been verified by
learned court below. This fact has not been
denied by learned counsel for opposite parties.
As of now, no difference exists between parties.
Consequently, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no useful purpose shall be served
by prolonging the proceedings of above
mentioned case. In view of compromise entered
into by the parties, chances of conviction of
accused applicants are also remote and bleak.
Resultantly, continuation of proceedings would
thus, itself cause injustice to parties. The instant
trial would only entail loss of precious judicial
time in a futile pursuit.

In view of above, the instant application
succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. reported in
(2017) 9 SCC 641

2. Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal
& anr. Vs The St. of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC
834

3. Ramawatar Vs St. of M.P. reported in 2021
SCC OnLine SC 966

4. Rangappa Javoor Vs The St. of Karnataka &
anr. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74

5. Jasmair Singh & anr. Vs St. of Har. & anr.
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 73

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Sri Anurag Singh, Advocate
has put in appearance on behalf of
opposite party No.2 by filing his
vakalatnama in Court today, which is
taken on record.