Allowed

Ram Prakash and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2018A482/4599/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the charge sheet under sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. in a criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate. The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment based on a verified compromise between the parties. Citing Apex Court precedents, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings, and thus, allowed t

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings and charge sheet were quashed.

Ram Prakash and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4599 of 2005

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Prakash And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Dharam Pal Singh,S. Niranjan

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet under sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. in case crime no. 62A/03 (State Vs. Ram Prakash and others) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Agra.

¶6

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the parties have entered into compromise.Compromise has been verified by the court below.The A.C.J.M. II, Agra has sent the report dated 22.3.2017 to this effect.

¶7

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 stating that the parties have entered into compromise and do not want to proceed with the present case.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 10.12.2018 Atul kr. sri.

Ram Prakash and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash and Others 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

Manoj Kurmi Vs State of U.P. and another

Vijay Bhadur Singh @ Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ikramuddin Vs State of Up and Anr.

Bhema Shanker and Others Vs State of U.P.and Others

Anil Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Bansal Vs State of U.P. and Others