Allowed

Shiv Shanker Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2019A482/26371/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that since the dispute was amicably settled, continuing the trial would serve no fruitful purpose and constitute an abuse of process, even though the underlying offences were non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2514 of 2009, along with sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, were quashed.

Shiv Shanker Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26371 of 2016 Applicant :- Shiv Shanker Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶4

This application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2514 of 2009 (State vs Shiv Shanker) arising out of Case Crime No. 799 of 2008, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, PS Barsathi, District Jaunpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur.

¶5

Pursuant to order dated 2.9.2016, the parties appeared before the court below on 23.09.2016 for verification of settlement / compromise, who were duly identified by their counsel's, while verifying the compromise / settlement dated 5.11.2015. The certified copy of the said joint compromise application and verification order are annexed with the supplementary affidavit, which is on record.

¶6

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 in 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.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the above fact.

¶8

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

¶9

In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable 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 dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.

¶10

Since the dispute between the parties has 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.

¶11

In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶12

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2514 of 2009 (State vs Shiv Shanker) arising out of Case Crime No. 799 of 2008, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, PS Barsathi, District Jaunpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur against the applicants are quashed in terms of compromise.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.7.2019 / ss

Shiv Shanker Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shanker Singh and Another 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.Ankita Awasthi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mukesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Gupta and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anu Jain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shazade Khurram Vs State of Up and Another