Allowed

Kuldeep and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018A482/21358/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of criminal proceedings instituted for offences including attempted murder and intimidation arising from a criminal dispute. Upon hearing counsel, the single judge observed that the parties had entered into a settlement via affidavit. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that since the dispute was resolved amicably and no pr

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 18.11.2017 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 456 of 2018.

Kuldeep and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21358 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 18.11.2017 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 456 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 698 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 324 I.P.C., Police Station- Devband, District-Saharanpur, pending in the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Devband, Saharanpur in pursuance of compromise dated 27.04.2018 entered into between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants states that the present prosecution has been lodged against the applicants on account of certain misunderstanding arising between the parties and with passage of time, the parties have been able to resolve their misunderstanding and differences and at present the opposite party no.2 itself realize that the allegations have been made against the present applicants on account of misunderstanding and that the applicants had no criminal intent. It is further stated that an application for compromise has been filed by both the parties on 27.04.2018 before the learned court below.

¶9

Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶10

In this regard, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 reads under:

¶11

"7. That it is submitted that a case was also lodged against the deponent side on 29.09.2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 427, 336, 436, 324, 452 IPC at case crime no. 697 of 2016 at Police Station Devband, District Saharanpur, in which a charge sheet was submitted by

¶12

investigating officer and after intervention of some well wishers and reputed persons both the parties entered into a compromise on 27.04.2018 and filed the same before the court concerned and prayed the court concern to quash the entire proceeding of case on the basis of compromise as they did not want to proceed the matter further.

¶13

8. That it is submitted that as both the parties entered into compromise and same has been submitted before the court concerned and both the parties did not want to proceed matter further, hence this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 546 of 2018 (State Vs. Kuldeep and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 698 of 2016, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 324 IPC, Police Station Devband, District Saharanpur pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Devband, District Saharanpur as well as charge sheet dated 18.11.2017 submitted by investigating officer in pursuance of compromise dated 27.04.2018 entered between the parties."

¶14

Also, alongwith the rejoinder affidavit, the affidavits of the injured persons have been annexed, taking the similar stand.

¶15

It is then stated that in the cross case instituted by the applicants against the opposite party no.2, in view of the compromise noted above, the said opposite party no.2 had filed an application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21406 of 2018, which has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2018 in view of the compromise reached between the parties and has quashed the criminal prosecution.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants 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 their civil and private disputes through a compromise 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 applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶17

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties 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

¶19

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.

¶20

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed, subject to payment of cost Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- on each party) to be deposited before the Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.7.2018 Lbm/-

Kuldeep and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep and 4 Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munawwar Shah and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Chandra and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anshudhar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Pal and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.