Allowed¶11

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

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022A482/1185/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application (No. 1185 of 2021) by Jitendra and 4 others against charge sheet dated 20.05.2019 in Case Crime No. 35 of 2019 (Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. Bahadurgarh, District Hapur) on the basis of a compromise with opposite party no. 2, verified by the Court below vide report dated 25.02.2021 following the High Court's direction of 12.02.2021; application allowed and charge sheet and proceedings set aside relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (JT 2008 (9) SC 192); High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Justice Gautam Chowdhary, order dated 14.2.2022.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; charge sheet dated 20.05.2019 and all proceedings of Case Crime No. 35 of 2019 set aside (quashed). ¶11

Jitendra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; charge sheet dated 20.05.2019 and all proceedings of Case Crime No. 35 of 2019 set aside (quashed).

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 20.05.2019 and the proceedings in Case Crime No. 35 of 2019 (Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Bahadurgarh, District Hapur) should be quashed in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and verified by the Court below.

¶6

Court's answer

Since the parties do not wish to pursue the case, the matter is purely of a personal nature and has been mutually settled by way of a compromise verified by the Court below (report dated 25.02.2021), no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

In view of the well-settled principles laid down by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003(4) SCC 675) and Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation (J.T. 2008(9) SC 192), the charge sheet as well as the proceedings of Case Crime No. 35 of 2019 are set aside.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Gautam Chowdhary, J.; order dated 14.2.2022) allowed Application U/S 482 No. 1185 of 2021 filed by Jitendra and 4 others seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 20.05.2019 in Case Crime No. 35 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur. The dispute with opposite party no. 2 was found to be purely personal in nature; the parties had mutually settled their differences, opposite party no. 2 did not wish to press charges, and the compromise had been verified by the Court below (High Court reference order dated 12.02.2021; verification report dated 25.02.2021). Relying on the Apex Court's principles in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003(4) SCC 675 and Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, J.T. 2008(9) SC 192, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution and set aside the charge sheet and proceedings of the said case.

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1185 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Somendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing the charge sheet dated 20.05.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 35 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur, pursuant to compromised entered into between the parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of private dispute between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case has been lodged against the applicants but that no real criminal offence had actually occurred. It is thus submitted that the present criminal prosecution 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 12.02.2021, 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 25.02.2021, 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 parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature, 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 25.02.2021, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶10

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.

¶11

The present application is accordingly allowed.

¶12

Order Date :- 14.2.2022 SK Srivastava

¶13

Digitally signed by SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.02.16 15:57:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Imran Vs State of Up and Another

Mayank Bana Vs State of U.P.and Another

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

Mahzabeen Bano Vs Amzad Khan

Abhishek Kaushik Vs State of U.P. and Another