Allowed

Arif and 9 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2019A482/14877/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash charge sheet and further proceedings for disputes involving sections 498A, 377 IPC, and D.P. Act. Court allowed application and quashed proceedings based on entered compromise between parties, citing precedents permitting compromise even in cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of the charge sheet case No. 216 of 2017 are quashed; no order as to costs.

Arif and 9 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14877 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Arif And 9 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Arshad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Compromise affidavit filed by Sri Pramod Kesharwani, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohd, Arshad, learned counsel on behalf of applicants, Sri Pramod Kesharwani, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 20.12.2016 as well as further proceedings of Case No. 216 of 2017 (CNR No. UPAL040008622017) arising out of Case Crime No. 0152 of 2016, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 294, 377 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-3, Aligarh.

¶8

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 2 of the compromise affidavit, filed by Shri Pramod Kesharwani, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. A copy of the compromise between both the parties dated 21.11.2018 has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the compromise affidavit.

¶9

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶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 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Arti

Arif and 9 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif and 9 Ors. 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

Shiv Poojan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagwan Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raheesh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shrawan Kumr and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Krishna Nand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another