Allowed

Smt Pooja @ Muskan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2020A482/5468/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406, 494, 504, and 506 IPC. The quashing was based on a mutual compromise deed dated 29.3.2019 reached between the applicant and the opposite party, rendering further proceedings unnecessary as the dispute was settled amicably.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in compliance case No. 288 of 2011 were set aside and the application was allowed.

Smt Pooja @ Muskan and Another Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5468 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Pooja @ Muskan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Singh,Kapil Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Sri Rateesh Singh, Advocate has filed vakalatnama along with affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rateesh Singh learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings in complaint Case No. 288 of 2011 (Prem Kumar Banwani Vs. Chandra Prakash Belani & others) under Sections 406, 494, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Etawah on the basis compromise reached between the parties on 29.3.2019.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 29.3.2019 has been filed as Annexure-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 applicant 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 applicant 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of the fact that the parties want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 29.3.2019, therefore, no useful

¶11

purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶12

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.

¶13

The present application is accordingly allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 20.2.2020/A.

Smt Pooja @ Muskan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pooja @ Muskan and Another 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

Manish Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P.

Wasi Haidar Vs State of U.P. and 21 Ors.

Prem Nath Mishra and Anr. Vs State of Up and Anr.

Airunnisha Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Prince Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another