Allowed

Balraj Singh Dulara and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2021A482/10012/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar, J. allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summoning and further proceedings in a complaint case involving Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and DP Act, citing a compromise between the parties and reliance on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3173 of 2015 are quashed. No order as to costs.

Balraj Singh Dulara and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10012 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Balraj Singh Dulara And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi,Anant Ram Dube Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradip Narain Singh,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 24.12.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 3173 of 2015 (Jyoti Singh Vs. Jairaj Dulara and Others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Vijay Nagar, DistrictGhaziabad, as well as further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.

¶7

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their wellwishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been made part of the record. The order-sheet dated 6.8.2018 has been placed on record, whereby the Court below has verified the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsel for parties have jointly come with a prayer that there would be no harm and error, it would be the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

¶9

The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-

¶10

1. 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

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

¶13

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

¶14

5. 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

In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Complaint Case are hereby, quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 2.8.2021 S.Verma

Balraj Singh Dulara and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balraj Singh Dulara and 2 Others 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

Smt. Seema Parveen Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sultan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sharma @ Rajan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alok Kumar Srivastwa Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others