Allowed

Satish and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2021A482/1559/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 392 IPC. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the court observed that a compromise entered between parties rendered further prosecution unnecessary and allowed the petition for quash.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Case No.2002/9 of 2017 were quashed. No order as to costs.

Satish and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1559 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Satish And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Certified copy of the order-sheet of the court below filed by learned counsel for the applicants today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing entire proceedings of Case No.2002/9 of 2017 (old No.177/9 of 2011) (Vinod Kumar Vats Versus Satish and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 392 IPC, P.S. Meerapur, District-Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar and also quash summoning order dated 02.08.2011 in terms of the compromise entered into between parties on 23.07.2019.

¶8

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 filed before the court concerned which has been properly verified by the court concerned. The certified copy of the said compromise has been filed as Annexure-06 to the affidavit.

¶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 Case are hereby, quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

Let a copy of this order be sent to trial court concerned within a week for communication and necessary action.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.9.2021

¶21

MN/-

Satish and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish and 4 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

Pushpendra and 4 Ors. Vs State of Up and Another

Remo D Souza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Himanshu Vs State of Up and Another

Deep Shikha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sudhir Kaushik Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Ratan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another