Allowed

Shalabh Agarwal and 02 Others v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2019A482/11146/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in a criminal case involving allegations u/s 498A IPC. The court noted a compromise between the parties and held no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings, leading to their quashing.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Case No.1426 of 2015 are hereby quashed. The application is allowed. No order as to costs.

Shalabh Agarwal and 02 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11146 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shalabh Agarwal And 02 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mirza Ali Zulfaqar

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit dated 27.3.2019 filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Mirza Ali Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1426 of 2015 (State Vs. Shalabvh Agarwal), arising out of Case Crime No.47of 2013 under Sections 498A,323,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.Act , Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -IInd Gorakhpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.6 of the Short Counter affidavit dated 27.3.2019 , wherein it has been stated that compromise has been entered into between the parties and no dispute exists as on date.

¶9

The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-

¶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

¶16

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

In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 12.4.2019 aks

Shalabh Agarwal and 02 Others v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalabh Agarwal and 02 Others v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Sayeed Bhaee Vs State of U.P. and Another

Victoria Sausan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Manju Lata Vs State of U.P.and Another

Shahnawaj @ Shanu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Tamseel Ui Jamshed Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahman @ Atur Rahman and Anr. Vs State of Up and Anr.