The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 394 IPC based on a compromise deed between the parties, relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing settlement in non-compoundable offences.
Proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2007 arising from Complaint Case No. 15 of 2006 were 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. - 7308 of 2021
Applicant :- Jagram Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Mishra
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 Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2007 arising out of Complaint Case No. 15 of 2006 under Section 394 I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai in pursuance of compromise dated 06.02.202.1
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 through supplemtary affidavit 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 criminal proceedings arising from a compromise deed under Section 394 IPC are maintainable and can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶9
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶10
[2008) 9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersReferred¶11
( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶12
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶13
( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherReferred¶14
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagram Singh Yadav
State of U.P.
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
