Allowed

Shiv Kumar Deepak and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2022A482/10926/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to quash criminal proceedings involving charges under IPC and SC/ST Act. The court noted that the parties had amicably settled the dispute through a verified compromise deed, recorded by the trial court. With the complainant's agreement and the foregone conclusion of acquittal, the court held no useful purpose served in continuing the trial and quashed the pro

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet dated 09.01.2021, cognizance order dated 24.06.2021, and entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No.335 of 2021 were quashed.

Shiv Kumar Deepak and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10926 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Deepak And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Pratap Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶6

Heard Mr. Virendra Pratap Pal, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 09.01.2021 as well as the impugned cognizance order dated 24.06.2021 and the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No.335 of 2021 (State Vs. Shiv Kumar and another), Case Crime No.357 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(5A) SC/ST Act, P.S.Sadabad, District-Hathras, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, District- Hathras.

¶8

On 13.05.2022, the following order was passed:-

¶9

"Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2. The same is taken on record.

¶10

Heard Mr. Virendra Pratap Pal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶11

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing the charge-sheet dated 09.01.2021 and the cognizance order dated 24.06.2021 passed in Case Crime No. 357 of 2020 under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5-A) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sadabad Session Trial No. 335 of 2021 (State Vs. Shiv Kumar and another), pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Hathras.

¶12

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that through good offices of certain well-meaning persons the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and have mutually compromised in the matter. According to the counsel there is no dispute left out any more in between the parties and they wish no more litigation in between them.

¶13

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that as the opp. party no.2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the lower court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the accused, the acquittal of the accused-applicant is now a foregone conclusion. It shall be a sheer abuse of the court's process, if the proceedings going on in the lower court are still allowed to go on further. Submission therefore is that in the wake of the inter-se compromise arrived at in between the parties, the impugned proceedings ought to be quashed.

¶14

The counsel for the complainant too expressed his complete agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the accused-applicant and in so many words has urged before the Court that the opposite party no.2 has no objection if the present application in question is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed.

¶15

Let compromise, if any, be filed before trial court within two weeks from today, where it shall be verified in presence of both sides and after its verification, certified copy of compromise along with verification order of trial court concerned, be filed on record of this Court, by way of supplementary affidavit.

¶16

List this case on 11.7.2022 in the list of fresh cases before the appropriate Bench.

¶17

By the next date of listing, opposite party no.2 may file the counter affidavit."

¶18

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 13.05.2022, the supplementary affidavit has been filed today annexing the certified copy of the order dated 13.07.2022 as well as 14.07.2022 has been placed on record. By order dated 14.07.2022, the compromise deed, which has already been filed before the Court concerned, has been verified in the presence of the parties and their respective counsels.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order dated, he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶21

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶22

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

¶23

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677 ,

¶24

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

In the aforesaid judgments, 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. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶28

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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶29

Accordingly, the proceedings of charge sheet dated 09.01.2021 as well as the impugned cognizance order dated 24.06.2021 and the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No.335 of 2021 (State Vs. Shiv Kumar and another), Case Crime No.357 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(5A) SC/ST Act, P.S.-Sadabad, District-Hathras, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, District- Hathras, are hereby quashed.

¶30

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

¶31

It is always open to the parties to approach this Court, in case, the verification has been done by playing fraud.

¶32

Order Date :- 22.7.2022 Rahul.

¶33

Digitally signed by RAHUL GOSWAMI Date: 2022.07.25 14:39:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Kumar Deepak and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Deepak and Another 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

Brajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritesh Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Surendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Chandra Mohanty Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Patel Alias Dinesh Vs State of U.P.and Another