Allowed

Smt. Vimla Dixit and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018A482/2853/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this quashing application, the court held that since the parties had amicably settled the dispute and filed a joint affidavit confirming the compromise, the criminal proceedings should be quashed as no useful purpose would be served by continuing them.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 165 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No. C-29 of 2009 were quashed.

Smt. Vimla Dixit and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2853 of 2010

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Vimla Dixit And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Akhilesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vishal Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶6

The present revision has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 165 of 2010 (State Vs. Smt. Vimla Dixit and others), arising out of Case Crime No. C-29 of 2009, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of A.C.M.M.-I, Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed joint affidavit of the applicants and opposite party no. 2 and submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise and in support thereof they have filed their joint affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the joint affidavit it has been stated that both the parties have been compromised in the above noted case and they did not want to pursue the the matter any further.

¶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 Akhilesh Kumar, 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 quashed 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 matter further.

¶11

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

¶12

(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) , proceedings in Criminal Case No. 165 of 2010 (State Vs. Smt. Vimla Dixit and others), arising out of Case Crime No. C-29 of 2009, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, is hereby quashed.

¶13

The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.11.2018 Rmk.

Smt. Vimla Dixit and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vimla Dixit and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Veer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Akshaibar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.