Quashing of proceedings based on settlement is not applicable to offences with a serious impact on society.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and perused the entire record.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 17.09.2022 and all consequential proceedings, including cognizance order dated 30.09.2022, passed by the A.C.J.M. Court No.10, Azamgarh in Case Crime No.64 of 2022, P.S. Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh, under Section 323, 504, 506, 427, 34, 171-F, 392 IPC read with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, which is pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Court No.10, Azamgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has referred the first information report and material collected during investigation and it was submitted that no prime facie case is made out against applicants. Earlier the applicants have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.11708 of 2023 (Abhijeet Yadav and 5 others vs. State of U.P.) with same prayer for quashing of entire proceedings and summoning order and that application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2023 and the prayer for quashing of proceedings was refused. It is submitted that after disposal of said application, both the parties have compromised the matter and now the informant of the case does not want to proceed with the case and both the parties have filed an application for compromise, which is annexed as Annexure-5 to this application. The alleged incident is private in nature between both the parties. It was submitted that in view of aforesaid facts, the impugned charge-sheet along with consequential proceedings and cognizance order may be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has not opposed the application and submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application and submitted that first application of applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking same prayer, has already been dismissed by this Court on merits and applicants were given liberty to move discharge application in accordance with law but instead of availing that remedy, the applicants have filed this second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. making same prayer. It was submitted that alleged incident took place at the godown, where the Electronic Voting Machines (E.V.Ms.) pertaining to assembly Election of 2022 were lying and the counting of votes has to take place on the next day. Referring to first information report and facts of the matter, it was submitted that the act of the applicants cannot be termed private in nature and in fact they have tried to create interference in election process, where the E.V.Ms were lying, and counting has to take place on next day.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Perusal of record shows that earlier the applicants have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (No.11708 of 2023, Abhijeet Yadav and 5 others vs. State of U.P.), with prayer to quash the impugned proceedings, including the charge-sheet and the summoning order, and that application was decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order 03.04.2023, wherein, the prayer for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet, summoning order and proceedings was refused. However, it was directed that in case applicants file an application for discharge before the court concerned, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Now, this second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking same relief. The ground taken in this second application is that both the parties have compromised the matter and an application for compromise has been annexed with the instant application.

8. So far as position of law on the point of quashing of proceedings on ground of settlement is concerned, in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versu