Allowed

Pradeep and another v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2018A482/3161/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an s. 482 Cr.P.C. petition, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a non-compoundable offence under the SC/ST Act. The Court relied on Apex Court precedents to allow quashing based on amicable settlement and restoration of peace.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings of the case arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2016 are quashed in terms of compromise.

Pradeep and another Vs State of U.P. and another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3161 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Vikram Yadav,Onkar Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Joint affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 9.7.2016 as well as cognizance order dated 6.7.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, (State vs. Ratan Kumar and others) as well as entire proceedings of the S.T. No. 67 of 2017 arising out of case crime no. 305 of 2016, u/s 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and 3(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kisni, District Mainpuri.

¶7

Heard Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Raja Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is a case of both the parties that the applicants and opposite party no. 2 have entered into compromise and they do not want to litigate any further, therefore continuance of the proceeding against the applicants would amount to abuse of process of law; the said fact has been stated in para-2 of the short counter affidavit. Undoubtedly, the applicants are facing trial u/s 3(dha) of SC/ST Act, which is non compoundable.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have settled their disputes amicably, the proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of U.P., (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 .

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties have been settled, the opposite party has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be quashed.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record including the joint affidavit filed today on behalf of the parties.

¶12

In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands.

¶13

Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to

¶14

continue till its logical conclusion.

¶15

In view of the above, the application is allowed.

¶16

The entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed in terms of compromise.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.3.2018 Dhirendra/

Pradeep and another v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep and another 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

Raju Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jalalu Alias Jalaluddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mayank Vs State of U.P. and another

Deepak Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Mukesh Pal and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.