Quashed

Boby and Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2019A482/28347/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court granted an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings pending against the applicant for offences under the IPC. The court relied on a joint affidavit confirming that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties, finding that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. The compromise was allowed and the case was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Complaint Case No. 61 of 2010 are hereby quashed and the application is allowed. No order as to costs.

Boby 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. - 28347 of 2010

¶3

Applicant :- Boby And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Kripa Shankar,Krishan Mohan Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have filed application along with joint affidavit regarding compromise arrived at between the parties, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to stay/quash the proceedings of Complaint Case NO. 61 of 2010 pending in the court of ACJM, Etawah, under section 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Basrehar, District - Etawah.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the parties that deponent of the joint affidavit dated 14.8.2018, is opposite party no. 2, herself Smt. Usha Devi, and applicant no.1 Bobby. It is further contended that a compromise has arrived at between the parties and the matter has been amicably settled and as such on date no dispute exist between the contesting parties and no purpose would be served if the present application remains pending before this Court.

¶9

In view of the above contention this Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:- B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 .

¶10

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.

¶11

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 case.

¶12

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

¶13

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶14

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.5.2019 ssm

Boby and Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boby 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

Arjun Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Dheeraj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Yatendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Abbas Alias Rizwan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sardar Amarjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Chander Rai and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another