Allowed

Arif Gudda and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2020A482/4886/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash pending criminal proceedings arising from a compromised case. Relying on precedent, the court set aside the proceedings as the dispute was mutually settled and no useful purpose would be served by further prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4060 of 2015 are set aside and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

Arif Gudda and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4886 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Arif Gudda And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rajpal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard Rajpal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4060 of 2015 (State Vs. Arif Gudda and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 516A of 2012 under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Fatehpur, District Fatehpur, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, in terms of compromise dated 14.3.2019.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 14.3.2019 has been filed as Annexure-4 and 5 to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) and has submitted that since the mater has been compromised between the parties amicably, hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution of the applicants in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the opp. party no.2, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further with the matter.

¶9

In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 14.3.2019, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶10

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014), Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another,J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶11

The present application is accordingly allowed.

¶12

Order Date :- 24.2.2020 Gss

Arif Gudda and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif Gudda and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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 Pooja @ Muskan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Airunnisha Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashish Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vakil and 2 OTHERS2 Vs State of U.P. and Another