Allowed

Dr. Surendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2019A482/27086/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that since the private dispute was amicably settled, continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process and no longer served any purpose.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7950 of 2015 under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mirzapur were quashed.

Dr. Surendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27086 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dr. Surendra Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kripa Shankar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit annexing the verification report filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kripa Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the state.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 22.10.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 7950 of 2015 (Dr. Satyendra Prasad Dr. Surendra Singh Yadav), under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in terms of compromise.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant 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 keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, opposite party no.2 has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶10

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

¶11

In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law

¶12

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 dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7950 of 2015 (Dr. Satyendra Prasad Dr. Surendra Singh Yadav), under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur against the applicant are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Order Date :- 26.8.2019/AKT

Dr. Surendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Surendra Singh Yadav 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

Ganesh Harijan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Vijay Verma and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fariyad Ansari and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Vijay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Bhawna Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and another