Allowed

Arvind v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2021A482/5148/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from Sections 323, 504, and 308 IPC after a compromise was arrived at between the applicant and the complainants, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Criminal Case No. 297 of 2020, Charge-sheet dated 25.12.2019, and summoning order dated 22.1.2020.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5148 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2& 3 as well learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through the record.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 297 of 2020 (State Vs. Arvind) as well as Charge-sheet dated 25.12.2019 and summoning order dated 22.1.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate- Hapur, arising out of Case Crime No. 0581 of 2019, under Section 323, 504, 308 IPC, P.S.- Pilkhuwa, District- Hapur, in terms of the compromise.

¶7

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their wellwishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. This fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite party no.2 and it has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention to the letter dated 3.8.2021 sent by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, whereby it has been apprised that vide order 12.4.2021 the compromise arises between the contesting parties have been duly verified.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

5. 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 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.

¶15

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. Therefore, the application is liable to be allowed.

¶16

The present application stands allowed . Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 297 of 2020 (State Vs. Arvind) as well as Charge-sheet dated 25.12.2019 and summoning order dated 22.1.2020 passed pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate- Hapur, arising out of Case Crime No. 0581 of 2019, under Section 323, 504, 308 IPC, P.S.- Pilkhuwa, DistrictHapur, is hereby quashed.

¶17

Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court below immediately.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.9.2021 S.Verma

Arvind v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

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