Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020A482/8624/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504 IPC and the SC/ST Act arising from a compromise between the parties. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the case, allowing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding is quashed. No order as to costs.

Chandrashekhar Yadav 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. - 8624 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Chandrashekhar Yadav And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Murli Dhar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sohan Lal Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicantsand learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of of S.S.T. No.132 of 2019 arising out of case crime No.83 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Chandrashekhar and others) under Section 323, 504 I.P.C and 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act.

¶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 Sohan Lal Yadav, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.2 has filed counter affidavit duly supported by affidavit of opposite party no.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

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 17.12.2020 SS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Yadav 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.

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

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