Allowed

Shailendra Shukla @ Beeru and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2019A482/14953/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Special Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court considered a prayer to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act based on a compromise dated 18.3.2019. Relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in cognizable offences, the Court found no need to prolong proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 38312 of 2018 and quashing of charge sheet dated 9.1.2018 in Criminal Case No. 28312 of 2018 are hereby quashed.

Shailendra Shukla @ Beeru and Another Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14953 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shailendra Shukla @ Beeru And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Swaroop (Singh),Shivakant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shivakant Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to stay/quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 38312 of 2018 (State v. Shailendra Shukla and others) pending in the court of ACMM-2, Kanpur Nagar, Case Crime No. 943 of 2016, under section 498A, 323,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar and also to quash the charge sheet dated 9.1.2018 in Criminal Case No. 28312 of 2018 (State v. Sahilendra Shukla and others) pending in the court of ACMM-2, Kanpur Nagar, as case crime No. 943 of 2016, under section 498A, 323,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that parties have entered into compromise on 18.3.2019 and same was also filed in the criminal case No. 28312 of 2018 (State v. Shailendra Shukla and others) pending in the court of ACMM-2, Kanpur Nagar, as Case Crime No. 943 of 2016, under sections 498A,323,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar, in which it was stated that all the case which are pending/filed by each party were settled on the basis of compromise. A certified copy of the said compromise dated 18.3.2019 has been filed and annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit filed in support of application. After the compromise between the parties the litigation between the parties came to an end and all the cases which have been filed by either of the parties came to an end and nothing remains to be decided by the court below.

¶8

Perused the compromise which has been entered into between the parties, certified copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of application.

¶9

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 .

¶10

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

¶11

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 :- 18.4.2019 ssm

Shailendra Shukla @ Beeru and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Shukla @ Beeru and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyan Prakash Agarwal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Netra Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Mohan Kaushik and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Prabhu Narayan Shan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neelam Vs State of U.P. and Another