Allowed

Smt. Sagira and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2019CRLP/12085/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash pending criminal proceedings. The Court accepted that a compromise was reached between the parties and held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 27 of 2012 and related orders dated 25.4.2015 and 21.3.2013 were quashed.

Smt. Sagira and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12085 of 2015

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Sagira And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Parvez Iqbal Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Bachcha Singh,Bhaiya Ghanshyam Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

A joint affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for both the parties, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Pervez Iqbal Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhaiya Ghanshyam Singh,, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record brought on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 27 of 2012, U/s 323, 498A, 504 IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act, pending in the court of CJM, Ballia together with the orders dated 25.4.2015 and 21.3.2013.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that a compromise has been arrived at between both the parties i.e.petitioner no.4 and daughter of respondent no.2 on 31.8.2017 and they do not want to initiate any proceeding against each other. To this effect a compromise application was filed on 5.9.2017 before the Court below in Complaint Case No.948 of 2016 which has been accepted by the court below, a copy of the order/compromise verification dated 5.9.2017 has been filed and has been annexed as Annexure-2, to the affidavit filed in support of present application.

¶9

Perused the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,1st, Ballia dated 5.9.2017, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of present application, which reveals that parties have settled their dispute and have no grievance against each other.

¶10

In view of the above contention this Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:- B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶11

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.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein

¶13

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.

¶14

Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶15

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶16

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.11.2019 IA

Smt. Sagira and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sagira and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. 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

Smt. Renu Dubey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Manisha Omar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Poonam Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Devendra Kumar Garg Vs State of U.P. Thru Home Secy. and Another

Mislawati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Kumar Garg Vs State of U.P. and Anr.