In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the high court quashed criminal complaints and a summoning order due to a mutual compromise between the accused and the parties, finding no utility in continuing the proceedings.
The proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No.6030 of 2016 and the summoning order dated 27.10.2016 were set aside.
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. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19317 of 2019
Applicant :- Bhagwan Das And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Krishna Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri Ram Krishna Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri R.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought quashment of the proceeding in Criminal Complaint Case No.6030 of 2016 Mamta Vs. Bhagwan Das and others, under Sections 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rauja, District Shahjahanpur as well as summoning order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.
It has been urged jointly that in this case, compromise has been reached between the parties and the victim of this case is none other than the deponent Smt. Mamta who has filed her short counter affidavit stating therein, particularly in paragraph no.6 that compromise has been reached between the parties on 29.03.2019 and proceeding of this case may be quashed by this Court.
It is thus, argued that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicants is bad in law. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance in the matter reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466 Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another in support of his contention.
It has been further added that if proceeding of the aforesaid case is allowed to go on then that will not result in conviction and possibility of conviction is bleak. Therefore, proceedings in the aforesaid case initiated by opposite party no.2 against the applicant is liable to be quashed in terms of the compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have no objection, if this application is allowed and the proceedings are quashed.
In view of the fact that the applicant and opposite party no. 2 do
not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
Thus, in view of above, the proceeding in Criminal Complaint Case No.6030 of 2016 Mamta Vs. Bhagwan Das and others, under Sections 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rauja, District Shahjahanpur as well as summoning order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below for necessary information and follow up action.
Order Date :- 16.5.2019 rkg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. should be quashed in view of the compromise reached between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and anotherReferred¶8
(2014) 6 SCC 466 Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhagwan Das
Mamta
State Of Up
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
