The Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 504, 506, and 354(Kh), 308 IPC based on a compromise deed between the applicants and the respondents, relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in cognizable offences.
The proceedings of the aforementioned case 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.
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13650 of 2022
Applicant :- Jabar Sher And 12 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar,Anil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Narayan Pandey
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.76 of 2021 by Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur as well as further proceedings of Criminal Case No.3812 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.175 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 504, 506, 354(Kha) and 308 IPC, Police Station Mirzapur, District Shahjahanpur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that parties have settled the matter by way of compromise, copy of the report of verified compromise deed is placed before the Court, hence proceeding and impugned order is liable to be quashed.
The attention of this Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677].
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
In the aforesaid cases, 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. and another, 2013 (83) ACC 278 in which the law expounded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
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 would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
In view of above, the proceedings of the aforementioned case are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.1.2023 Shahroz
Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ACC 278Referred¶16
Jabar Sher And 12 Others
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
