Allowed

Balli @ Rajendra Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020A482/8605/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an application to quash criminal proceedings based on charge-sheet arising under IPC and SC/ST Act. Court accepted parties' compromise and held prolonging proceedings serves no useful purpose. Entire proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of entire proceedings of S.S.T. No.65 of 2019, cognizance order dated 27.02.2019 and charge-sheet No.229/2018.

Balli @ Rajendra Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8605 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Balli @ Rajendra Singh And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashwini Kumar Ojha

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of S.S.T. No.65 of 2019 (State Vs. Kehar Singh) based on charge-sheet No.229/2018 dated 06.07.2018 arising out of case crime No.221 of 2018, under Section 323, 504 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Talbehat, District Lalitpur pending in the Court of Sessions/Special Judge SC/ST Act Lalitpur including the cognizance order dated 27.02. 2019.

¶7

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in the affidavit filed in support of this application.

¶8

Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.2 has filed counter affidavit duly supported by affidavit of opposite party nos.2, wherein it has been stated that the parties have entered into compromise and they do not want to proceed with the present case.

¶9

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶10

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

¶11

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶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 complaint case.

¶17

Accordingly, the entire aforesaid proceedings are, hereby, quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 17.12.2020 SS

Balli @ Rajendra Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balli @ Rajendra Singh and Anr. 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

Ravi Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Suleman Vs State of U.P.

Puran and Another Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Khanna Vs State of U.P.

Chandrashekhar Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shah Mohammad Khan @ Pammi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others