Allowed

Rampal Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2019A482/13151/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This applicant filed under section 482 CrPC praying to quash criminal proceedings due to a sweet deal or compromise between parties. The court found the dispute settled and no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise even in certain cognizable cases.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings of case no. 32886 of 2018 and charge sheet dated 16.10.2018 are quashed.

Rampal Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13151 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rampal Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gulab Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri G.C.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.C.Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State and perused the record brought on record.

¶7

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of case no. 32886 of 2018(State Vs. Rampal Singh and other) as well as charge sheet dated 16.10.2018 in Case Crime No.488 of 2018, under sections 147, 323 I.P.C. & Sec.3(1)Medical Protection Act, P.S. Indrapuram City, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate,Ghaziabad.

¶8

In the short counter affidavit it is specifically mentioned by opposite party no.2 that both parties have entered into a compromise on 16.9.2018 outside the Court, hence he does not want to pursue the case pending before this Court.

¶9

It appears that parties have settled their dispute and have no grievance as on date against each other.

¶10

In view of the above contention this Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:- B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby, quashed.

¶14

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶15

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Order Date :- 26.8.2019 IA

Rampal Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampal Singh 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

Dharam Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naghendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendrapal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mubarak Ansari Vs State of Up and Another

Central Bank of India Vs State of U.P.and Others

Sandesh Kumar Maurya @ Sandesh Kumar Vs State of Up and 2 Ors.