In an application for quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed the matter as the applicant and victim had settled out of court with no dispute remaining between them.
Proceedings of Case No. 3182 of 2017 arising out of crime no. 12 of 2017 are hereby 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. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21604 of 2018
Applicant :- Sauraj Trivedi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Applicant No. 1 and daughter of opposite party no. 2 are present before the Court who have duly been verified by their counsel and their presence has also been recorded in the order sheet.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri B.N. Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 25.07.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 3182 of 2017 (State vs. Sauraj Trivedi) arising out of case crime no. 12 of 2017, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S., Mahila Thana, District, Allahabad, pending in the court of CJM-I, Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that now the parties have entered into compromise and no dispute is remains between the parties as on date. It is further submitted that a joint affidavit to this effect has also been filed by applicant No. 1 and daughter of opposite party no. 2 with the signature of counsel for both the sides. It is next submitted that as per terms of compromise, he has come up with a cheque of Rs. 2 lacs and the same has been handed over to Sri B.N. Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. It is also submitted that in the light of settlement between the parties, criminal proceeding may be quashed.
Sri B.N. Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has accepted the facts and supported the case of the applicants. He further submitted that in case this Court is pleased to quash the criminal proceeding pending against the applicants, he has no objection.
I have perused the joint affidavit and in the said affidavit, it has been clearly mentioned that the matter has been settled between the parties out of the Court and victim-daughter of opposite party no. 2 does not want to pursue the matter against the
applicants.
In view of above, the applicants and respondents 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 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. Stated 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.
The present application accordingly allowed .
Order Date :- 13.12.2018 Sartaj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of HaryanaFollowed¶13
2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi) Vs. State of Haryana · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of InvestigationFollowed¶13
J.T. 2008(() SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶13
(2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab) · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶13
(2014) Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sauraj Trivedi
State Of U.P.
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
