Hearing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement, the Court held that settled grievances allow for quashing and granted the prayer.
The entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No. 372 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2017 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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2480 of 2023
Applicant :- Sanjay Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Haridwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Ajeet Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Haridwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants- Sanjay Yadav, Vinod Kumar Yadav and Rahul Yadav with the prayer to allow this application and quash the order dated 29.09.2022 and the entire criminal proceeding of S.T. No. 372 of 2018 (State vs. Sanjay Yadav and others) arsing out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2017, under Sections 323, 506, 325, 308 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, DistrictAzamgarh pending in the court of Additional Session Judge / Special Judge E.C. Act, Azamgarh on the basis of compromise with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and the opposite party No.2 have compromised the dispute, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.7 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. It is further argued that the said compromise has also been filed before the concerned trial court, as such the proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.
From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (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) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.
From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.
The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
The present application is allowed .
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered between the parties.
Whether the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the entire criminal case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherRelied on¶10
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 InvestigationRelied on¶10
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersRelied on¶10
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶10
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherRelied on¶10
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278
Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and anotherRelied on¶10
Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Yadav and 2 Others
State of U.P.
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
