Allowed

Harvendra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2021A482/4970/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of charge sheet and cognizance order due to settlement via compromise deed. Court referred Apex Court precedents on compromise in cognizable offences and quashed proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution proceedings initiated under the impugned charge sheet and order are hereby quashed and the application is allowed.

Harvendra and 5 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. - 4970 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Harvendra And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Jaiswal

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 6.9.2016 and the order taking cognizance dated 28.1.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha and entire criminal proceeding initiated in pursuance thereof against the applicants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 I.P.C., P.S.- Naugava Sadat, District- Amroha. Further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 282 of 2017 arising out of case crime no.186 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 I.P.C., P.S.- Naugava Sadat, District- Amroha pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha.

¶7

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 today before the Court, hence proceeding and impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶8

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

¶9

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶10

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677].

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶14

In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in

¶15

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 case.

¶17

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

¶18

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶19

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.9.2021//Fhd

Harvendra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvendra and 5 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

Mohit Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Nazim @ Nazir Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Elma Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niyaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others