The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon verifying a compromise deed between the applicant and respondents. Based on mutual settlement and precedent, the court held no useful purpose would be served in continuing the case.
The criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 0020 of 2021 are 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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:161163
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10747 of 2023
Applicant :- Ram Bihari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akshay Raj Singh
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
"Short counter affidavit filed today by Sri Akshay Raj Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Akshay Raj Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsel for applicant submitted that parties have entered into compromise and has also filed compromise deed before trial court, which may be verified, for which, learned counsel for opposite party has no objection.
Accordingly, trial court i.e. Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai is directed to verify the compromise deed and send its report to this Court forthwith.
List this case on 31.07.2023 along with connected matter.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. "
Order Date :- 9.8.2023 Sartaj
Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under POCSO and IPC sections should be quashed upon mutual settlement and compromise.
Whether verification of the compromise deed by the trial court satisfies the requirements for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶20
Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 529
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors.Explained¶20
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of HaryanaExplained¶20
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of InvestigationExplained¶20
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another; (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶20
Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶20
Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2014) Supreme Today 642
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Bihari
State of U.P.
Unknown Party
Neeraj Tiwari
Sartaj Ahmad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
