Allowed

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2019A482/21315/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Section 482 CrPC, the court quashed criminal proceedings initiated for offences under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC due to a mutual settlement between the parties, holding that continued proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings of case no. 400 of 2016 arising out of the charge sheet dated 28.11.2014 were quashed.

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21315 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Verification report annexing order sheet along with affidavit filed today are taken on record.

¶6

The present application u/s 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings arising out of charge sheet dated 28.11.2014 in case no. 400 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Babu and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sirsa Kalar, District Jalaun pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.

¶7

Heard Shri Ajay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record. None present for the opposite party no. 2.

¶8

Pursuant to order dated 20.07.2016, the parties appeared before the court below on 28.07.2016 for verification of settlement / compromise, who were duly identified by their counsel's, while verifying the compromise / settlement dated 01.08.2016.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA submits that since the dispute between the parties have been settled, learned AGA has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶11

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel

¶12

for the parties and gone through the entire record.

¶13

In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in noncompoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial disputes and it is not related to a heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.

¶14

Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.

¶15

In view of the above, the application is allowed .

¶16

The entire criminal proceedings of charge sheet dated 28.11.2014 in case no. 400 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Babu and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sirsa Kalar, District Jalaun pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.9.2019 Sanjeet

Sunil Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar and 2 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Arbunnisha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Javed Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. Seriful Islam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Manju and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

B.K. Bhartiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another