Allowed

Naiem and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2019A482/35402/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by a charge-sheet after the applicants and the opposite parties amicably settled their dispute. The court held that continuing the case would serve no purpose and would be a waste of time, aligning with the Supreme Court's view on quashing proceedings in settled non-heinous private disputes.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of the charge-sheet dated 26.12.2014, registered as charge sheet no. 163 of 2014, are quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Naiem and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35402 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Naiem And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Prakash Singh Kushw,Anil Kumar,Veer Bhagat Singh Kushwah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Vishvakarma,Varun Kumar Vishwakarma

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit and Short counter affidavit filed today are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and 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 charge-sheet dated 26.12.2014 registered as charge sheet no. 163 of 2014, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)X SC/ST Act arising out of Case Crime No. 468 of 2014, Police Station Sahawar, District Kasganj in terms of compromise.

¶8

Referring to the supplementary affidavit and short counter affidavit, learned counsel for the applicants argued that both the parties have settled the dispute out of court and opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed with the trial. 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 by keeping the matter pending till its logical end. 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.

¶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 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 charge-sheet dated 26.12.2014 registered as charge sheet no. 163 of 2014, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)X SC/ST Act arising out of Case Crime No. 468 of 2014, Police Station Sahawar, District Kasganj against the applicants are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶16

Order Date :- 24.7.2019 Sanjeet

Naiem and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naiem and 4 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

Kaushal Kishore Shukla and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Pal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Prakash Parihar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and another

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shankar Dubey Alias Loha Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.