Allowed

Shahzadey and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2019A482/11636/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a verified compromise between the applicants and the State. Relying on pre-established principles, the court held that further proceedings were bad in law and served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings including the charge-sheet dated 26.12.2015 and case no.293 of 2016 are hereby quashed.

Shahzadey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11636 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shahzadey And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri D.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of this application.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge- sheet dated 26.12.2015 as well as entire proceedings of case no.293 of 2016, State vs. Shahzadey and others, under Sections 147, 148, 380, 448, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Paschim Sharira, District Kaushambi arising out of case crime no.261 of 2015, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi on the basis of compromise dated 2..

¶7

Report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi dated 2.3.2019 discloses fact that the compromise has been worked out between the parties and the verification of the compromise has also been made by the Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi vide its order dated 15.04.2019, copy whereof has been annexed with this application.

¶8

It has been disclosed in the report of the Magistrate that after examining the parties, he found the outcome of compromise based on fairness and the compromise has been acted upon by the court below.

¶9

In view of above, the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicants is bad in law. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in

¶10

keeping the application pending.

¶11

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Judgement reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another , the entire proceeding of charge- sheet dated 26.12.2015 as well as entire proceedings of case no.293 of 2016, State vs. Shahzadey and others, under Sections 147, 148, 380, 448, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Paschim Sharira, District Kaushambi arising out of case crime no.261 of 2015, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, is hereby quashed.

¶12

The instant application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 1.5.2019 Raj

Shahzadey and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahzadey and 4 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

Jamal Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Narayan and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Neelam Devi and 2 Others Vs the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and 9 Others

Mohd Naseem and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haris Husain @ Raja and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpa Vs State of U.P.and Another