Allowed

Raj Bahadur Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019A482/41440/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court quashed criminal proceedings against the applicant following a compromise settlement between the parties. Relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing settlement in certain criminal cases, the court held no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the trial after the dispute was resolved.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of S.T. No. 412/16 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C. pending before the Additional District Judge, Agra, were quashed.

Raj Bahadur Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41440 of 2019 Applicant :- Raj Bahadur Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Mahesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to set aside the entire proceeding of S.T. No. 412/16 (State Vs. Raj Bahadur Singh and others) relating to charge sheet dated 23.02.2015 being Case Crime No.240-A/14, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kheragadh, District Agra on the basis of compromise have been settled between both parties on 04.04.2019 before the court concerned.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The F.I.R. 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. 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.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

In compliance of the order of the Court dated 3th December, 2019, the injured namely, Devendra Singh and the opposite

¶9

party no.2, namely, Nihal Singh are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, 5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶15

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held 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. & 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶17

Accordingly, the proceedings of S.T. No. 412/16 (State Vs. Raj Bahadur Singh and others) relating to charge sheet dated 23.02.2015 being Case Crime No.240-A/14, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kheragadh, District Agra, pending before the court of Additional District Judge 12^th , Agra, are hereby quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Ashok Gupta

Raj Bahadur Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Bahadur Singh and 3 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

Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Chand Sharma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ashish Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahangi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ummed and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kawaljeet Kaur Vs State of U.P. and Another