Single judge, High Court of Allahabad, allowed quaashing of criminal proceedings on grounds of partiesfi Settlement. Entire proceedings quashed. Cost directed in the matter.
Quashed entire proceedings. Directed applicant to pay cost before Legal Services Committee within 3 weeks.
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. - 3289 of 2018
Applicant :- Najir Hasan And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And And 1 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Azad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 18.09.2014 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1503 of 2017, arising out of N.C.R. No. 142 of 2014, Case Crime No. 162 of 2014, under Sections- 323, 324, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Bachharayun , District- Amroha.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute amicably in writing on 06.01.2018.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. In fact the present short counter affidavit discloses that the compromise has been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
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 applicants 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 applicants. 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.
From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
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 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.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed , subject to payment of
cost Rs. 2,000/- (1,000 on each party) to be deposited before the Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
Order Date :- 6.6.2018 NS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compromise affidavit filed by the parties should be relied upon to quash the proceedings.
Whether the entire criminal proceedings should be quashed in view of the partiesfi compromise.
Whether a cost is to be deposited to grant the relief in the present application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶9
(2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Yogendra Yadav vs. State of JharkhandRelied on¶6
(2014) 9 SCC 653 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of GujaratRelied on¶6
(2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Najir Hasan And 3 Ors
State Of U.P. And And 1 Ors
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
