Allowed

Vijay Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023A482/12917/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that since a compromise was entered into between the parties and verified by the lower court, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial, and thus the proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceeding of Case No.3089 of 2008 arising under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act is quashed.

Vijay Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12917 of 2009

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- B.N. Padney Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ram Rasik Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. B.N. Padney, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ram Rasik Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 01.07.2002 as well as cognizance order dated 18.09.2008 passed in Case No.3089 of 2008 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.647 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the year 2009, the matter was referred to the mediation centre and protection was granted to the applicants. During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the parties have entered into compromise, therefore, on 09.02.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶9

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 01.07.2002 as well as cognizance order dated 18.09.2008 passed in Case No.3089 of 2008 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.647 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants stated that matter has been compromised between the parties and also applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 both are living together as husband and wife. He further states that the compromise deed has been annexed as annexure-SA-1 (compromise affidavit).

¶11

On these facts, the parties have arrived for some amicable settlement and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to protect the right of the applicants pending final disposal of the matter. Learned counsel also submits that as the parties have entered into amicable settlement, there is no likelihood of conviction in the matter.

¶12

However, parties are granted three weeks time to appear and get the compromise deed verified from the court below and file a certified copy thereof as well as a copy of the verification order, on or before the next date of listing before this Court. The court concerned is also directed to transmit the same by the next date positively.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file copy of this order before the court below within 15 days from today for compliance, failing which, interim protection given by this Court shall cease to operate and law will take its own course.

¶14

List on 28.03.2023 in the additional cause list.

¶15

As an interim measure, till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. "

¶16

In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 22.03.2023. A letter dated 27.02.2023 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit has been placed alongwith true copy of compromise deed as well as copy of order dated 23.02.2023 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶19

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶23

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

¶24

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 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶25

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.

¶26

Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Case No.3089 of 2008 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.647 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Pilibhit, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit is hereby quashed.

¶27

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

¶28

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.

¶29

Order Date :- 28.3.2023 Jitendra/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar and 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

Mayank Katheriya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahmpal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Imran and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another