Allowed

Vakeel Akhtar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2018A482/43344/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated for alleged offences under sections 354, 452, and 506 IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding compromise in criminal cases, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial following a settlement between the parties.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings and the summoning order dated 30.11.2017 are quashed.

Vakeel Akhtar Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43344 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vakeel Akhtar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Niklank Kumar Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 30.11.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Criminal Case No.1844 of 2015, Case Crime No.16 of 2015, under Sections 354, 452, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Jalesar, District Etah, pending in the Court of Civil Judge(S.D.)., Jalesar, Etah.

¶7

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 18 of the joint affidavit, filed in support of this application.

¶8

Sri Som Veer, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and does not dispute the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. It has further been pointed that this application is supported by the joint affidavit of the parties and there is admitted that the dispute between the parties is settled out side the court.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically

¶16

held that compromise can be made between the parties 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 entire aforesaid proceedings are, hereby, quashed.

¶19

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.12.2018

¶21

Vakeel Akhtar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakeel Akhtar 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

Kamruddin Vs State

Jamboo Prasad Jain Vs State and Niranjan

Kailashi Vs Sunita

Amir Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhalu Alias Nand Lal Gupta Vs State of Up and Another