Allowed

Som Yadav @ Himanshu Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2022A482/11193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet arising from a case under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC and the S.C./S.T. Act. The court relied on a verified compromise and noted the dispute was a personal family matter where no useful purpose would be served by further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet and proceedings of Case Crime No. 894 of 2019 were set aside.

Som Yadav @ Himanshu Yadav and 2 Others Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11193 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Som Yadav @ Himanshu Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Govind

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing the charge sheet dated arising out of Case Crime No. 894 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Som Yadav @ Himanshu Yadav and others), under Sections 147, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, Police Station Orai, District Jalaun, pending before learned Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act), Jalaun at Orai Magistrate, Court No.3, District Meerut, pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises due to some confusion between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2. The present case has been lodged against the applicants but that no offence had actually occurred. It is thus submitted that the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties, with passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences.He further submits, at present, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charge against the applicants. He next submits that vide order dated 08.11.2021, this Court had sent the matter for verification of the compromise before the Court below and the learned Court below has verified the same vide its report dated 08.12.2021, therefore the proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

In view of the fact that the applicants and opposite party

¶10

no.2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the compromise, which has also been verified by the concerned Court below, vide its report dated 08.12.2021, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶11

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the charge sheet as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶12

The present application is accordingly allowed . Order Date :- 15.2.2022 Krishna*

¶13

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR Date: 2022.02.17 16:15:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Som Yadav @ Himanshu Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Som Yadav @ Himanshu Yadav 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

Shabiha Begum and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Jitendra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahzabeen Bano Vs Amzad Khan

Mayank Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushal (Juvenile ) Vs State of U.P

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others