The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the matter was successfully settled through mediation between the parties, rendering further proceedings pointless.
The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 347 of 2014 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 60
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12622 of 2017
Applicant :- Rajeev Sharma And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D.K.Tiwari
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Mohd. Faiz holding brief of Sri K.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 347 of 2014 (Rahul Sharma Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly pending in the Court of A.C.J.M,, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that vide earlier order of this Court dated 22.11.2016, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre in Connected Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 32489 of 2016 between the same parties. The report of mediation centre dated 9.7.2017 is on record. The incharge mediation centre vide its report dated 9.7.2017 has reported that the matter has been compromised between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the matter has been compromised and the respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the matter any further as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the present case is finally decided.
Sri D.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has not disputed the said fact and submitted that the disputes have been amicably settled between the parties, therefore on the basis of compromise the Hon'ble Court may kindly be quashed the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.
In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as has been settled before the mediation centre and in view of the settlement agreement dated 9.7.2017, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi) Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the judgement of the
Apex Court reported in J.T. 2008 SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another) as well as Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and reported in 2014 Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another), the proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
The present application is, accordingly, allowed . Order Date :- 13.11.2018 Arvind
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on settlement achieved through mediation.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash proceedings based on amicable compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of HaryanaExplained¶10
2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherExplained¶10
J.T. 2008 SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another) · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶10
(2012)10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab) · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶10
2014 Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajeev Sharma and 4 Others
State of U.P.
Another
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
