In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed criminal proceedings based on a verified compromise deed between parties, holding that no useful purpose would be served in prolonging them despite the cognizable nature of the offences.
The proceedings of Case No. 1779 of 2016 and the summoning order dated 24.4.2017 are quashed.
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. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4262 of 2021
Applicant :- Ayyub Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Tiwari
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1779 of 2016 (new no. 6060 of 2019) under Sections 498A, 323, 452 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor pending before Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Bijnor as well as to quash the summoning order dated 24.4.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that parties settled the matter by way of compromise, copy of the report of verified compromise deed is filed before the Court, hence proceeding and impugned order is liable to be quashed.
The attention of this Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
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.
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 case.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.9.2021 Fhd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether quashing of proceedings is warranted on grounds of settlement and compromise in cognizable offence cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]Explained¶14
Ayyub
State of U.P.
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
