Allowed

Surajbhan and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2018A482/36520/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge-sheet and subsequent proceedings. Noting that the parties had entered into a compromise and did not wish to proceed, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in the complaint case were quashed.

Surajbhan and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36520 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Surajbhan And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State as also perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 15.10.2013 as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 60 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 307, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura.

¶7

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 12 of the affidavit, filed in support of this application.

¶8

Sri Gaurav Maurya, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of O.P. No.2 and has filed short counter affidavit stating that the parties have entered into compromise and do not want to proceed with the present case.

¶9

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶10

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶11

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶12

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶13

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶14

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶15

In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non

¶16

compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.

¶18

Accordingly, the proceedings in the aforesaid case are, hereby, quashed.

¶19

The application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶20

Order Date :- 13.12.2018 Ruchi Agrahari

Surajbhan and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajbhan and 5 Ors. 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

rajat kulshrestha Vs State of U.P. and another

Veeru @ Virendra SIngh Vs State of U.P. and another

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Naurangi Lal and 13 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Somesh Rana @ Someshvar Singh Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tapesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another