Allowed

Smt. Nini @ Minu and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2019A482/22202/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 380, 504, and 506 IPC. The court held that since an amicable settlement was reached and the matter compromised, prolonging the proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby quashed.

Smt. Nini @ Minu and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22202 of 2007

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Nini @ Minu And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Krishna,Hemant Kr.,Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Awadh Bihari Pandey,Smt. Fasiha Fatima

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit dated 24.1.2019 filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Hemant Kumar and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Awadh Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.3.2006 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar passed in Case No.696/2006, (Deepak Kumar Vs. Anil Kumar and others), under Sections 380, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Harvans Mohal, Distrit Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the pendency of proceedings better sense prevail between the parties who have now entered into an amicable settlement.

¶9

Sri Awadh Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submits that the matter has been compromised and both the parties have decided to live separately, the said fact has been mentioned in paragraph no.5 of this short counter affidavit and now the opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the matter any further.

¶10

The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-

¶11

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶12

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶13

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 9.7.2019 Dev/-

Smt. Nini @ Minu and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nini @ Minu and 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

Mahendra Singh Yadav Advocate and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Shanti Devi and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Puran Chandra Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.and Another

Shamshad Ahmad Alias Babaloo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Matloob Vs State of Up and Another