Allowed

Ayodhya Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2019A482/36507/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, quashed the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings arising from an offence under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court relied on a valid compromise and settlement deed between the applicant and the private complainant, concluding that prolonging proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The charge-sheet dated 11.01.2019, cognizance order dated 17.07.2019, and entire criminal proceedings of Special Trial No. 1286 of 2019 were quashed.

Ayodhya Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36507 of 2019 Applicant :- Ayodhya Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha,Ved Prakash Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ved Prakash Ojha Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶2

Supplementary affidavit, filed by counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 today in Court, is taken on record.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ved Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned Charge-Sheet dated 11.01.2019 along with cognizance order dated 17.07.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Special Trial No. 1286 of 2019, (State Vs. Ayodhya Prajapati), arising out of Case Crime No. 187 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(DA), (Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Tehrauli, District- Jhansi in the light of compromise dated 23.09.2019 between the applicant and Opposite Party No.2.

¶5

On the matter being taken up, Sri Ved Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has stated that the dispute has already been compromised between the parties and he does not want to further pursue the case against the applicant.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that a compromise has already been entered into between the applicant and the Opposite Party No. 2 and settlement deed has been executed, which has been annexed as Annexure 4. In para 4 and 5 of the settlement deed, it has been stated that the applicant and the Opposite Party No.2 are the neighbours and on the intervention of respected members of the society, they have settled their dispute outside the court in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them and they do not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings, as such, entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has filed an affidavit and in para 4 and 6, it has been stated that the parties have entered into a compromise and they do not

¶8

want to further pursue the criminal proceedings in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relation between them and he has no objection, if the proceedings are quashed.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶15

Wherein 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly, the proceedings of impugned Charge-Sheet dated 11.01.2019 along with cognizance order dated 17.07.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Special Trial No. 1286 of 2019, (State Vs. Ayodhya Prajapati), arising out of Case Crime No. 187 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(DA),(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Tehrauli, District- Jhansi are hereby quashed.

¶18

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.10.2019/Nadim

Ayodhya Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayodhya Prajapati 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

Jagan Vs State of U.P.

Lav Kush Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pala and Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kuraisha Begam and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Sewak Rathore and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another