Allowed

Deepak @ Deepu Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2021A482/7512/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR for sections 323 and 308 IPC. The proceedings were quashed based on a verified compromise agreement entered into between the parties with the consent of their well-wishers.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Case No.2115 of 2020 arising out of Crime No. 621 of 2019 are quashed.

Deepak @ Deepu Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7512 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak @ Deepu Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Patel

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Deepak Kumar Patel,learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing entire proceedings of Case No.2115 of 2020 (State Versus Deepak alias Deepu Sharma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 621 of 2019, under Sections 323 and 308 IPC, P.S. Sikandra, District-Agra, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in terms of the compromise entered into between parties on 09.02.2021.

¶7

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, 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-5 to the affidavit.

¶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 complaint case.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 9.8.2021 MN/-

Deepak @ Deepu Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak @ Deepu Sharma and 2 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

Vivek @ Chhotu (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Ritu Garg Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Sardar Jagjot Singh Rishi @ Jagjot Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Manjit Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another