Allowed

Sashank Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018A482/792/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The applicant argued that a settlement agreement had been executed between the parties, dispensing further legal proceedings. The court noted that the disputes were amicably settled and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the case.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC arising from N.C.R. No. 44 of 2016 are quashed.

Sashank Jain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 792 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sashank Jain And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Sharique Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶6

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings along with charge sheet dated 01.04.2017 in Case No.5469 of 2017, arising out of N.C.R. No.44 of 2016, under Sections323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Medical, District Meerut pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-X, Meerut.

¶7

Earlier, vide order dated 13.1.2017 in the connected Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 875 of 2017, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre and according to settlement agreement dated 17.3.2018, the parties have entered into compromise.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of settlement agreement dated 17.3.2018, this Court has quashed the proceedings of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22100 of 2017 on 27.8.2018, which was earlier filed by the applicants. He further submits that on the basis of aforesaid agreement, in the connected Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 875 of 2017, the proceeding of the case has also been quashed today by this Court, therefore, he requested that the present proceedings may also be quashed in light of settlement agreement between the parties.

¶9

Sri Sharique Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has not disputed the said fact and has submitted that the disputes have been amicably settled between the parties, therefore on the basis of compromise the Hon'ble Court may kindly be quash the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶10

In view of above, the applicants and respondent no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶11

Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi) Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the judgement of the Apex Court reported in J.T. 2008 SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another) as well as Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and reported in 2014 Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶12

The present application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Arvind

Sashank Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sashank Jain and Another 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

Amajut and Othersr Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sunder and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Dutt Vs State

Ankur Goyal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhule Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Charan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another