Dismissed

Sujan @ Sunnu @ Surendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 May 2019A482/12657/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed a cognizance order passed against the applicant in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO. The proceedings were stayed based on a compromise dated 19.01.2019 worked out between parties and recorded by the Special Judge.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings arising out of the compromised crimes, including the impugned cognizance order, are quashed.

Sujan @ Sunnu @ Surendra Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12657 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sujan @ Sunnu @ Surendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Keshav Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 impugned cognizance order dated 01.11.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.4, Jhansi, Case No.68 of 2014 (State vs. Sujan @ Sunnu), Charge- sheet No.104 of 2014, dated 13.10.2014 arising out of Case Crime No.164 of 2014, under Sections 380, 511, 452, 354-A IPC and 8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Raksha, District Jhansi in terms of compromise dated 19.01.2019, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, 8th, Jhansi.

¶7

Report of A.S.J./Special Judge (POCSO Act), court no.4, Jhansi dated 25.04.2019 discloses fact that the compromise has been worked out between the parties, 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 keeping the application pending. 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 impugned cognizance order dated 01.11.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.4, Jhansi, Case No.68 of 2014 (State vs. Sujan @ Sunnu), Charge- sheet No.104 of 2014, dated 13.10.2014 arising out of Case Crime No.164 of 2014, under Sections 380, 511, 452, 354-A IPC and 8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Raksha, District Jhansi in terms of compromise dated 19.01.2019, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, 8th, Jhansi, is hereby quashed.

¶10

The instant application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶11

Order Date :- 8.5.2019 Raj

Sujan @ Sunnu @ Surendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujan @ Sunnu @ Surendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Bhanu Gupta Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Kumkum Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs State of Up and Another

Arvind Bhargav Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another