Allowed

Madhav Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jan 2020A482/773/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a quashing application under S. 482 CrPC regarding a criminal case forUPPC offences arising from a property dispute, holding that since the parties resolved their differences, prolonging proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1129 of 2016 under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC are quashed and the application is allowed.

Madhav Singh and 2 Others Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 773 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Madhav Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh Parihar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit as well as perused the materials on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1129 of 2016 (State Vs. Madhav Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 379A of 2009, under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Turkpatti, District-Kushinagar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature having arisen over property. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstandings 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. Injuries claimed are wholly exaggerated. There may be some minor injuries as may have been unintentionally caused in the commotion that occurred at the relevant time. In any case the injury report does not represent the true facts. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other have resolved their differences and have made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties 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, namely, Sirjawati and the injured witnesses, namely, Harish Chandra Singh and Vivek Kumar Singh do not wish to press charges against the applicants. Both the parties have settled their dispute now.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also filed short counter affidavit, wherein in paragraph nos. 14 and 15, it has been stated as follows:

¶9

"14. That in reply of paragraph no. 26 and 26 of affidavit, now deponents are also wants to conclude the proceedings of the present case on the basis of compromise.

¶10

15. That in addition now deponents have no grievance against the applicants and both the parties are living together happily and proceeding of the present case should be concluded on the basis of compromise which has been taken place between the parties."

¶11

Pursuant to the order dated 7th January, 2020, applicant nos. 1 to 3, namely, Madhav Singh, Indradev and Mahendra Singh respectively as also opposite party nos. 2 to 4, namely, Sirjawati, Harish Chandra Singh and Vivek Kumar Singh are present in Court today. They have been identified by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and their signatures have also been verified by him.

¶12

On instructions received from opposite party no.2 and all the injured witnesses, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others ; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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. 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 complaint case as the parties have already settled their

¶20

dispute.

¶21

Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1129 of 2016 (State Vs. Madhav Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 379A of 2009, under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Turkpatti, District-Kushinagar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar, are hereby quashed.

¶22

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

¶23

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 14.1.2020

¶25

Sushil/-

Madhav Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

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

Lavkush Sahni and 7 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Awnish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deep Prakash Vs State of Up and Another

Raju @ Raghvendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munney and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hemanat Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another