Allowed

Ramkesh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2018A482/38078/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings under sections 323, 326, 504, and 506 IPC initiated against applicant by a tenant after parties filed a joint affidavit confirming compromise and absence of grievance, relying on Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Apex Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings initiated pursuant to charge sheet in Case No. 5036 of 2006 arising under sections 323/34, 326/34, 504, 506 IPC are hereby quashed.

Ramkesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38078 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ramkesh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

Memo of appearance filed by Sri Arvind Singh, Advocate behalf of opposite parties no.2 to 4 and joint affidavit which are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 and the learned AGA and have taken through the record.

¶7

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash entire proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge sheet whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicants in Case No. 5036 of 2006 ( State versus Ramkesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1360 of 2006 under sections 323/34, 326/34,504,506 IPC Police Station Robertsganj District Sonebhadra pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonebhadra..

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite parties no.2 to 4 are the tenants of the applicants. On account of some misunderstanding and misconception, strained term developed between them resulting into scuffle and thrashing causing injuries to both sides. The opposite party no.2 had lodged the NCR No.106 of 2006 under sections 323/504/506 IPC at Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra . After investigation the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the applicants undre section 326/323/504/506 IPC . The charges were also framed against them. From the side of the applicants complaint Case No. 7465 of 2008 (Ramkesh versus Munna and others ) was registered under sections 323/325/504/506 IPC.

¶9

The opposite parties no.2 to 4 after issuance of summons in the aforesaid complaint case appeared and were released on bail. The dispute between the applicants and the opposite parties no. 2. to 4 was with regard to tenancy, on the intervention of some senior and respected persons of the locality, good sense prevailed in the psyche of the applicants and the opposite parties and they decided to harmonize their bitter terms by entering into a compromise, in this connection joint affidavit has been filed before this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that since both the parties have entered into compromise and do not want to prosecute to each other hence the proceedings pending against the applicants may be rendered nugatory as on account of such compromise dispute between the parties will come to an end and peace and placid will be revived.The parties have filed affidavit jointly which may be taken into account as the complainant has no grievance against the applicants.

¶11

To buttress their submission, learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re Yogendra yadav and others versus State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653 wherein the criminal proceedings were quashed on the ground both the parties did not intend to contest the case and had no grievance against each other.

¶12

From the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges out that the disputes between the applicants and opposite parties are non-compoundable but in view of the verdict of Apex Court in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab (2012) 10, SCC 303 which has been dealt with and diluted in Yogendra yadav (Supra) the offences which are non-compoundable can be compounded having regard to the fact that the parties have settled their dispute by means of compromise and there is harmonious relationship between both the sides. They are living peacefully liberating from the bond of malicious prosecution, thus the prosecution of either side would be a waste of time and energy

¶13

causing obstruction in restoration of peace.

¶14

In the light of prolix discussion and also to give quietus to the dispute, this Court is of the view that the proceedings initiated against the applicants in Case No. 5036 of 2006 ( State versus Ramkesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1360 of 2006 under sections 323/34, 326/34,504,506 IPC Police Station Robertsganj District Sonebhadra are hereby quashed following the terms of the compromise entered between the parties as well as verdict of Apex court rendered in Yogendra yadav (Supra). The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed as above.

¶15

Order Date :- 27.10.2018 Naim

Ramkesh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkesh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Gaurav Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganga Dulari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs State of Up and 4 Others

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Geeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Soni and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another