In a Section 482 Cr.PC application, the Court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a domestic dispute after noting a verified compromise deed executed by parties on 29.7.2017.
Quashed the criminal proceedings in Case No. 784 of 2013 and Crime No. 47 of 2013.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15189 of 2019 Applicant :- Virendra Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Affidavit filed by Sri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. today, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Rajiv Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicants, and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to stay/quash the entire proceedings of the Case No. 784 of 2013, Case Crime No. 47 of 2013, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Shahpur, District-Gorakhpur, pending before the ACJM, court no.-3, District- Gorakhpur arising out of charge sheet dated 7.4.2013 and cognizance dated 8.7.2013.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that parties have entered into compromise deed dated 29.7.2017, which has been duly verified by the court below, a certified copy of the compromise verification report of the court below has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed today in this case.
Perused the verification report of the court below has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed today in this case.
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 .
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.
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.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.4.2019 ssm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 498A and cognate sections should be quashed in view of a verified compromise deed.
Whether the compromise between parties in a cognizable offence serves a useful purpose to justify quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶9
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶9
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersReferred¶9
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherExplained¶10
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Virendra Kumar And 2 Others
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
