Allowed

Ajeet @ Golu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 May 2019A482/20076/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted underSections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and D.P. Act. The Court quashed the proceedings considering the parties had reached a compromise and were living happily together, holding that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging them.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the criminal case are hereby quashed and the application is allowed.

Ajeet @ Golu and 3 Others Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20076 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ajeet @ Golu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prasad Kanaujiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Prasad Kanaujiya, learned counsel for the applicants, and Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.

¶7

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to stay/quash the charge sheet/cognizance order dated 5.2.2018/22.6.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 28153 of 2018(State v . Ajeet @ Golu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 438 of 2017, under sections 498A, 323,504,506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Govind Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that parties have entered into compromise on 15.9.2018 and both applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are living happily as husband and wife and they do not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case. A copy of the compromise deed dated 15.9.2018 has been filed and annexed as Annexure - 4 to the affidavit filed in support of instant application.

¶9

Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2, has no objection and has stated that parties have amicably settled their dispute and as on date there exist no dispute between the parties, hence no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending.

¶10

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 .

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶14

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶15

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.5.2019 ssm

Ajeet @ Golu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet @ Golu and 3 Others 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

Smt. Santosh Vs State of U.P.

Jagannath and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ikram Urf Kala and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kewla Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another