Allowed

Hari Shankar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2018A482/19051/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an application for quashing criminal proceedings based on a disputed compromise between applicants and opposite party 2. Finding the matter mutually settled, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial and ishing all proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings including the charge sheet and cognizance order were quashed.

Hari Shankar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19051 of 2008

¶3

Applicant :- Hari Shankar Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Praveen Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶6

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings including the charge sheet dated 8.2.2008 and cognizance order dated 5.6.2008 filed under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mardah, District Ghazipur pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Ghazipur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit along with certified copy of compromise deed dated 30.3.2011 and has also stated in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit that on the basis of said compromise, learned Additional Civil Judge (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghazipur vide order dated 21.4.2011 has already been disposed of pending Case No. 504 of 2007, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Copy of the said compromise has been annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants states that the matter has been compromised and the opposite party 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 may be finally decided.

¶9

Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, 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 quash the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶10

In view of above, the applicants and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the

¶11

matter further.

¶12

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 proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶13

The present application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶14

Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Arvind

Hari Shankar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Shankar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar Vs Krishna Devi

H S Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Deo and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shyam Sunder and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Dutt Vs State

Amajut and Othersr Vs State of U.P.