Allowed

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

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2019A482/16654/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal proceedings arising out of FIR under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and D.P. Act. The court held that since the parties had settled the dispute via a mediation report after the applicant surrendered and was on bail, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 1779/2016 arising from Case Crime No. 1034 of 2011 is hereby quashed.

Krishna Nand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16654 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Nand Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of applicant and Sri Thakur Azad Singh, learned AGA on behalf of State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1779/2016 (State Vs. Krishna Nand Sharma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1034 of 2011, under sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shahbad, District Rampur in pursuance of the Charge sheet dated 31.12.2011 as well as cognizance order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on the basis of settlement of separation between the parties.

¶7

The argument is that in compliance of order dated 29.05.2013 the applicant surrendered and released on bail by the courts below, thereafter, the matter has been settled between the parties on 12.09.2017. A copy of the mediation report has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.

¶8

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

¶9

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶10

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶11

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶12

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶13

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 .

¶14

In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held

¶15

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Nand Sharma 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

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

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

Raheesh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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