Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2018A482/4353/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 392 IPC based on a verified compromise between parties, the Court held that useful purpose would not be served by prolonging proceedings and quashed the trial.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Special Session Trial No.12/97, under Section 392 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.75/96, P.S. Khera Rathore, District Agra, were quashed.

Veeru @ Virendra SIngh Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4353 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Veeru @ Virendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D.K. Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 15.2.1997 as well as entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No.12/97, under Section 392, IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.75/96, P.S. Khera Rathore, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge-IX, Agra.

¶6

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise before the court below, which have been duly verified by the court below and vide order dated 22.3.2018 court below has verified the compromise.

¶7

Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 is present and has no objection in case this application is allowed.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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 compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly, the proceedings of Special Session Trial No.12/97, under Section 392, IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.75/96, P.S. Khera Rathore, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge-IX, Agra are, hereby, quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 12.12.2018 T. Sinha

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeru @ Virendra SIngh 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

Babloo @ Akhilesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and another

Mool Charan Lal Vashist Vs State of U.P.

Chaman Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

rajat kulshrestha Vs State of U.P. and another

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh and 2 Ors. Vs State of Up and Anr.