The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a compromise between the applicant and the State representative.
Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 79 of 2017 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11330 of 2019
Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Niraj Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rohit Tiwari
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 79 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2015, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mehnajpur, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.15, Azamgarh.
The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 4 of the affidavit, filed in support of this application.
Joint affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the parties stating that the parties have entered into compromise and do not want to proceed with the present case.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
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.
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 case.
Accordingly, the proceedings in the aforesaid case are, hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed .
Order Date :- 1.11.2019 Ruchi Agrahari
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC should be quashed based on a filed compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶9
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶9
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersReferred¶9
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1, · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466. · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherReferred¶15
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prabhat Kumar Singh And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
