In an application under S. 482 CrPC, Allahabad High Court quashed interim processes including a charge-sheet and summoning order. The court allowed the application based on a verified compromise deed between applicant and parties.
The proceedings of the above-mentioned cases were 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. - 18381 of 2020
Applicant :- Subodh Yadav @ Samod Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Dev Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kamal Dev Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, 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 charge-sheet dated 19.07.2019 as well as summoning order dated 25.10.2019 (State Vs. Subodh Kumar Yadav) arising out of Case rime No. 21 of 2019, under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 I.P.C, Police Station Aldaha, District Auraiya, pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Auraiya.
Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that parties settled the matter by way of compromise, copy of the report of verified compromise deed has been placed before this 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 cases.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed
Order Date :- 30.1.2023 Vinod.
Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings should be quashed upon settlement and compromise between parties.
Whether useful purpose would be served by prolonging criminal proceedings in light of compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶9
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶9
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersReferred¶9
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶14
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ACC 278
Subodh Yadav @ Samod Singh
State of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
