Allowed

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

Allahabad HC28 May 2019A482/40452/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad (Court No. 69) allowed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash pending criminal proceedings. The court quashed the case after the parties entered into an amicable settlement, relying on Supreme Court precedents permitting compromise in certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby quashed.

Sanjay and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40452 of 2011

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.P. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit dated 14.4.2019 filed by the learned counsel for the parties today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A., for the State-respondent.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.476 of 2011, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Naugaon Sadat, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Jyotiba Phule Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.2 of the supplementary dated 28.10.2018, wherein it has been stated that during the pendency of proceedings better sense prevail between the parties who have now entered into an amicable settlement.

¶9

The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted

¶17

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 complaint case.

¶18

In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 28.5.2019 Dev/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu @ Vivek Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajneesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Reema Singh @ Rekha Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Bagi and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sakeena Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Verma @ Amit Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another