Allowed

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

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023A482/10832/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 147, 323, 504, and 506 IPC after hearing an application under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that continuing the case would be futile and harassing since the parties had verified a compromise and did not wish to prosecute further.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 179 of 2000 under Sections 147, 323, 504 & 506 IPC were quashed, and an entry was directed to be made in the Police Station General Diary.

Sudama and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10832 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sudama And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshman Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Laxman Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and leaned AGA for the State.

¶6

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 179 of 2000, State vs. Sudama and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2000), under Sections 147, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Dakore, District Jalaun pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun.

¶7

In compliance with the order of this Court dated 31.03.2023, the Judicial Magistrate Jalaun at Urai has submitted a report dated 06.04.2023 reporting that the parties have verified the compromise. Along with the report, a copy of the order dated 05.04.2023 verifying the compromise and a xerox copy of the compromise application has also been forwarded.

¶8

Learned AGA states that looking to the nature of the offences, the State, though the forerunner of the prosecution, does not have much objection to advance. The offence is one which does not have wide social ramification.

¶9

A perusal of the papers shows that the parties have duly verified the compromise and in terms of the compromise they do not wish to prosecute the case any further.

¶10

The purport of the compromise is that the complainant/opposite party does not want to prosecute the impugned proceedings any further. Since the offences charged are not compoundable, the applicants have approached this Court invoking our jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

¶11

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the compromise and its verification by the learned Magistrate, this Court is of opinion that permitting the proceedings impugned to

¶12

continue would be an exercise in futility and harassment of parties. It would also lead to wastage of time, energy and resources with no profit to anyone. In the circumstances, in order to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings ought to be quashed.

¶13

In the result this application succeeds and is allowed.

¶14

The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 179 of 2000, State vs. Sudama and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2000), under Sections 147, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Dakore, District Jalaun pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, are hereby quashed.

¶15

An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of Police Station Dakore, District Jalaun that all proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2000 stand quashed under orders of this Court. It shall be ensured by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, that this part of the order is carried out in the GD of the Police Station concerned.

¶16

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun through the learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun and the S.H.O., P.S. Dakore, District Jalaun, through the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Vijay

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama and 4 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Expo Trans India Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Lata and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulshan Garg and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahipal Singh @ Guddu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another