The high court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the applicant sought only a direction for compounding the offence instead of quashing proceedings, declining to entertain the prayer.
The prayer for direction for compounding of the offence was not entertained; the application was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11745 of 2021 Applicant :- Satpal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the Stateopposite party.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Court No. 3, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1039 of 2018 (Vakil Khan Vs. Satpal Yadav), Police Station Sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1039 of 2018 (Vakil Khan Vs. Satpal Yadav) Police Station Sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.
Counsel for the applicant, at the very outset submits that he does not wish to press the prayer for quashing of the proceedings. The only indulgence, which he seeks, is for a direction for compounding of the offence as per the observations made in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 .
The prayer sought in the application is accordingly not entertained.
Learned A.G.A. points out that in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, every offence punishable under the Act is compoundable.
Learned counsel states that the applicant would seek compounding of the offence before the court below where the proceedings are pending.
In case any such application is moved the court below would be expected to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the settled principles of law.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Pratima
(Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking compounding of the offence rather than quashing of proceedings should be entertained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal H.Referred¶4
Damodar S. Prabhu Vs Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satpal Yadav
State of U.P.
Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
