Allowed

Tapesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2018A482/38991/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Siddharth, J., allowed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash proceedings arising from alleged cheating and forgery offences. The court relied on a notarial compromise filed by the applicant and the respondent, noting that compromise ordinances in certain non-compoundable offences and holding that prolonging proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No. 705 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 290 of 2018, are hereby quashed.

Tapesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38991 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Tapesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 24.6.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 705 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 290 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor.

¶6

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise and a copy of compromise was also filed before the court below.

¶7

A notarial compromise has been brought on record by way of counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.2 by Sri Vipul Kumar Singh and Sri Ashutosh Tiwari, Advocates.

¶8

Learned counsels for the opposite party No.2 have not disputed the compromise raised on behalf of the applicant.

¶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

¶16

even in respect of certain cognizable and non 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 of the aforesaid case, are, hereby, quashed.

¶19

The application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶20

Order Date :- 13.12.2018 Ruchi Agrahari

Tapesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapesh Kumar 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

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.

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

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