Allowed

Amreesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jun 2019A482/24905/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet in a criminal case involving sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act. The High Court relied on previous decisions establishing that compromise can be made even in certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences and quashed the proceedings due to a compromise arrangement.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the criminal case with charge sheet dated 31.1.2017 are hereby quashed and the application is allowed.

Amreesh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24905 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Amreesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava 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 charge sheet dated 31.1.2017 in case crime no. 388 of 2016 (State Vs. Amreesh) under sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012 P.S. Naugawan Sadat District J.P. Nagar (Amroha) pending in the court Additional Sessions judge, Court No.1 J.P. Nagar (Amroha) in term of compromise dated 18.6.2019

¶6

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 5 of the affidavit, filed in support of this application.

¶7

Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed short counter affidavit stating that the parties have entered into compromise and do not want to proceed with the present case.The daughter of the opposite party no.2 has been married to some other man and her matrimonial life could be affected on account of pendency of this case.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 27.6.2019 Atul kr. sri.

Amreesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amreesh 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

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappi @ Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and another

Amjad Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Azaz Vs State of U.P. and Another