The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the I.P.C. following a compromise verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, holding that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the case.
The proceedings of the case are quashed; the application is allowed.
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. - 45
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14415 of 2018
Applicant :- Subodh Kumar Jain And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akshay Mohiley Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 28.4.2017 arising out of FIR dated 24.7.2016 as Case Crime No. 235 of 2016 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. P.S. Lohamandi, Agra, pending as case no. 1502 of 2017 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Agra.
The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise,which has been verified by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Agra vide order dated 12.6.2018.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278 ] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are, hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs
Order Date :- 5.12.2018 Atul kr. sri.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. should be quashed in view of a compromise between parties.
Whether a compromise in cognizable and non-compoundable offences warrants quashing of the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. JoshiReferred¶7
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil MerchantReferred¶7
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj SharmaReferred¶7
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian SinghReferred¶7
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra SinghReferred¶7
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
ShaifullahReferred¶13
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subodh Kumar Jain
Second unnamed applicant
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
