Allahabad High Court
DR. PRITI SINGHAL @ PRITI JINDAL AND 2 ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SANJIV KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings as the parties have mutually settled the dispute through a court‑verified compromise.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal complaint (Case No. 3218 of 2012) filed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The parties had reconciled and entered into a court‑verified compromise, which was filed before the Judicial Magistrate. Both the applicants' counsel and the opposing counsel jointly submitted that the dispute was settled and no longer required prosecution. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that the inherent power of the court may be exercised to achieve real and substantial justice, the High Court held that the matter was a private dispute with no wider social impact. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the entire criminal proceedings, including the summoning order dated 28.01.2013.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings when the parties have reached a compromise.
- Whether a complaint under Section 420 IPC, being of a private nature after settlement, can be dismissed without further trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420
Subjects
- Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Section 420 IPC
- compromise
- inherent jurisdiction
- quash criminal proceedings
- private dispute
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29845 of 2013
Dr. Priti Singhal @ Priti Jindal And 2 Ors.
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Yadav, Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Rajneesh Tripathi,
Rakesh Chandra Tiwari
Court No. - 84
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State,
learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3218 of 2012 (Muzeeb Khan vs.
Dr. Gaurav Agarwal and Others), under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station
Amroha Nagar, District Amroha (J.P. Nagar) as well as summoning order
dated 28.01.2013.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for opposite
party No. 2 jointly submit that the parties have reconciled their differences
and have entered into a compromise. It is submitted that applicant No. 2 and
opposite party No. 2 filed a compromise before the Trial Court, i.e., the
Judicial Magistrate/Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amroha, and the
same has been duly verified by the Trial Court. A certified copy of the
compromise, the affidavit of opposite party No. 2, Muzeeb Khan, as well as
the order sheet dated 10.11.2015 of the Trial Court, have been filed along
with the supplementary affidavit. They further submit that in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties, no dispute now survives. It is
also contended that the role of applicant No. 1 was limited to introducing
applicant Nos. 2 and 3, and the main allegations were levelled against
applicant Nos. 2 and 3.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which
has duly been verified by the Trial Court.
5. Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected
A482 No. 29845 of 2013
2
between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the Trial Court.
6. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power
can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh
Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of
Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the
process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at
between the parties.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the parties do not wish
to pursue the case any further, the dispute is essentially of a private nature
and has no wider social impact. Since it has been mutually settled between
the parties by way of a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by
proceeding with the matter further.
8. For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed
and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3218 of 2012 (Muzeeb Khan
vs. Dr. Gaurav Agarwal and Others), under Section 420 I.P.C., Police
Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha (J.P. Nagar) as well as summoning
order dated 28.01.2013 are hereby quashed.
February 23, 2026
Amit
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…