Allowed

Vipin Kumar Rajabat v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2018A482/20728/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge upheld the quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 354-A, 323, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act. The Court accepted a verified compromise between the applicant and the victim, relying on Supreme Court precedents, and ruled that no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.

What did the court decide?

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

Vipin Kumar Rajabat Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20728 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Rajabat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- B.N.Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 09.02.2017, cognizance order dated 07.10.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 84 of 2017 (State Vs. Vipin Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2016, under Sections- 354-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Rendhar, District- Jalaun, pending in the court of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai.

¶7

The applicant had earlier filed an Application U/S 482 No. 9191 of 2018, which was disposed of by order dated 22.03.2018 with the following observation:

¶8

"Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise has already been filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶9

Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."

¶10

Perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegation made against the applicant was of having asked for the mobile phone number of the sister of opposite party no. 2 and of having misbehaved with her. However, the FIR allegation does not specify or describe the misbehaviour alleged.

¶11

In his statement recorded before the police, the opposite party no. 2 had also stated that the applicant had held his sister by her wrist and had misbehaved with her as also he had uttered some obscene words. In the context of such allegations the matter of compromise was required to be verified before the learned

¶12

Court below.

¶13

The affidavit of opposite party no. 2 as has been filed before the learned Court below has been annexed with the present application. In that affidavit, the said opposite party no. 2 has specifically denied the occurrence of the incident with respect to which he had lodged the FIR. He further stated that he had lodged the FIR on the instigation of a third person. He has doubted the credibility of the police investigation.

¶14

The learned Court below has vide its order dated 20.04.2018 has verified the said compromise.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶16

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably and it is highly doubtful if the ingredients of the offence as alleged are made out.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant regarding the compromise entered into between the parties. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra ) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶18

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 3.7.2018 Abhilash

Vipin Kumar Rajabat v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar Rajabat v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Sandeep Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Parmatma Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratap Chanadra Verma and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Mumtaz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopi Nath Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another