Allowed

Manoj Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2019A482/40331/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings pending before a magistrate. The Court quashed the case after recording that the parties had amicably settled their differences and a compromise was filed, citing Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing upon settlement.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Case No. 2942 of 2012 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC were quashed.

Manoj Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40331 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Sharma And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Ashvani Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 & 3.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2942 of 2012 (State Vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 206 of 2002, under Sections-452, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Narsaina, District-Bulandshahr, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.3, Bulandshahr.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.

¶8

In the above regard, a compromise has been entered into between the parties.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3 has filed short counter affidavit. In paragraphs nos. 4 to 6, it has been

¶11

stated as follows:

¶12

"4. That opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have now amicably resolved the differences and have realized that under a misconception of fact criminal proceedings have been lodged by them against the applicants. Opposite party no.3 had been injured in an incident dated 27/28.04.2019 and the assailants could not be identified. Although, opposite party no.2 had been attacked with a knife, he did not sustained any injury which was life threatened.

¶13

5. That after having amicably settled their differences with the applicants, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have submitted a compromise application supported by affidavits in Case No. 2942 of 2012 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bulandshahr, having arisen from Case Crime No. 206 of 2002 under Sections 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Narsaina, District-Bulandshahr.

¶14

6. That opposite party no.2 and 3 undertake not to lead evidence against the applicants in Court, with respect to Case Crime No. 206 of 2002, Police Station Narsaina, DistrictBulandshahr."

¶15

In compliance of the order of the Court dated 28th November, 2019, the applicant no.1, namely, Manoj Kumar Sharma and the opposite party no.2 and 3, namely, Anis (informant) and Saukeen (victim) are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them.

¶16

On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 & 3 submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2&3 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶17

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶18

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶19

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

¶20

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶21

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

¶22

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6

¶23

SCC 466,

¶24

In the aforesaid judgments, 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. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶25

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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶26

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 2942 of 2012 (State Vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 206 of 2002, under Sections-452, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Narsaina, District-Bulandshahr, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.3, Bulandshahr are hereby quashed.

¶27

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Order Date :- 5.12.2019 JK Yadav

Manoj Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

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

Shri Niwas Daga S/O Girdhar Daga Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil Tyagi and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dalip Singh and 3 Othrs Vs State of Up and Another

Richa Sharma and Another Vs Principal Judge and Another

Santosh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Laxmikant Alias Lala and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another