The High Court allowed the applicant to quash the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on an amicable settlement between parties and relied upon Supreme Court precedents permitting compromise in cognizable offences.
The criminal proceedings in the underlying case are quashed.
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. - 16949 of 2010
Applicant :- Netra Pal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- I.S.Singh Vatsa Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Ref:- Criminal Misc. Application No.3 of 2018:-
Heard Sri I.S.Singh Vatsa, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the array of the parties in the affidavit dated 25.7.2018 during the course of the day.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 6.2.2010 in Case Crime No.216/2009 (Lallan Babu Vs. Netra Pal & Another), under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Fafund, District Auraiya.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the affidavit dated 25.7.2018, wherein it has been stated that during the pendency of proceedings better sense prevail between the parties who have now entered into an amicable settlement.
The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
5. 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 complaint case.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.4.2019 Dev/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in light of an amicable settlement between the parties under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the apex court's precedents allow quashing of proceedings involving cognizable and non-compoundable offences upon compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶11
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¶12
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersReferred¶13
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1, · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶14
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶15
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¶16
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Netra Pal
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
