Allowed

Bechan Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2019A482/22818/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed criminal proceedings involving Sections 427 IPC based on a compromise between the accused and the victim. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 542 of 2019 arising from N.C.R. No. 53 of 2017 are quashed.

Bechan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22818 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Bechan Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 542 of 2019, arising out of N.C.R. No. 53 of 2017, under Sections 427 IPC, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur.

¶6

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 11 of the affidavit, filed in support of this application.

¶7

Sri Vijay Tripathi, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of O.P. No.2 and has filed short counter affidavit stating that the parties have entered into compromise and do not want to proceed with the present case.

¶8

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly, the proceedings in the aforesaid case are, hereby, quashed.

¶18

The application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 25.6.2019 Ruchi Agrahari

Bechan Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bechan Yadav 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

Harveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aamir Rasadi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ritika Baranwal Vs State of U.P.and Another

Aniruddh Singh Vs State of U.P. and another

Ajay Ram @ Ram Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Babu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another