Allowed

Dalip Singh and 3 Othrs v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019A482/16746/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court quashed criminal proceedings under Ss. 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 IPC initiated against applicants due to a verified settlement between the parties and injured witnesses, relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing when no useful purpose is served.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings of Criminal Case No. 156 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 315 of 2014.

Dalip Singh and 3 Othrs Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16746 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dalip Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Murari Lal Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Murari Lal Jain, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 156 of 2015 (State Vs. Dalip Singh & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 315 of 2014, under Sections-323, 324, 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Malpura, District-Agra, pending in the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature having arisen over property. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstandings and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence, as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. Injuries claimed are wholly exaggerated. There may be some minor injuries as may have been unintentionally caused in the commotion that occurred at the relevant time. In any case the injury report does not represent the true facts. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other have resolved their differences and have made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 and the injured witnesses, namely, Premveer, Rajveer Singh, Dharmveer, Premlata and Palak do not wish to press charges against the applicants. Both the parties have settled their dispute now.

¶8

The present application has been supported by joint affidavit of the applicant no.1 Dalip Singh and opposite

¶9

party no.2 Shaymvir. In paragraph nos. 10 to 13, it has been stated as follows:

¶10

"10. That between the parties and both the parties are jointly sitting and they come to this conclusion that both are living peacefully and settled their dispute and not given evidence from each other before the Court below, and execute a written compromise between all accused person namely Dalip Singh, Ravindra Singh alia Guddu, Monu, Smt. Kesar Devi and other side Shyamvir Singh (respondent no.2), Premvir Singh, Dharamvir, Smt. Prem Lata, Palak. A true copy of compromise on 26.02.2019 betwen the aprteis before the Court below is being filed as ANNEXURE NO. '4' to this affidavit.

¶11

11. That the Court below has not decided the case according to the compromise between the parties till date.

¶12

12.That the aforesaid Compromise has not against the public policy because both the complainant and accused are same family member and blood relation and some hot talk between the parties on the ground on flowing the dirty water.

¶13

13. That both the parties are settled their dispute and further given assurance they will not fight or quarrel any of movement and they living peacefully."

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed an affidavit of one of the injured, namely, Rajveer Singh Solanki, wherein he has also confirmed the aforesaid compromise entered into between the parties.

¶15

Today, opposite party no.2 Shyamvir Singh and five injured witnesses, namely, Premveer, Rajveer Singh, Dharmveer, Premlata and Palak are present in Court today, they have been identified by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and their signatures have also been verified by him.

¶16

On instructions received from opposite party no.2 and all the injured witnesses, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

¶17

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶18

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another ; (2003)4 SCC 675 ,

¶19

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

¶20

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others ; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held wherein 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. & Another ; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶24

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 as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶25

Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 156 of 2015 (State Vs. Dalip Singh & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 315 of 2014, under Sections-323, 324, 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Malpura, District-Agra, pending in the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, are hereby quashed.

¶26

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

¶27

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶28

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Sushil/-

Dalip Singh and 3 Othrs v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalip Singh and 3 Othrs v. State of Up 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

Omendra Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Billu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Niwas Daga S/O Girdhar Daga Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil Tyagi and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Amit Vs State of U.P.and Another