Allowed

Teenu @ Mahendra Pratap Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 May 2023A482/31724/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal unusual appeal applicant sought quashing of criminal case proceedings based on a verified compromise between parties. The High Court noted the Apex Court precedents allowing compromise in certain cognizable offences. Observing no objection from the State and verified settlement, the Court quashed the proceedings citing no useful purpose in prolonging the case after dispute resolution.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 664 of 2022 arising out of Crime No. 0154 of 2021 are quashed.

Teenu @ Mahendra Pratap Singh and 5 Others Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31724 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Teenu @ Mahendra Pratap Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

The case is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. No one appears on behalf of opposite party to press this application even in the revised calling of the list.

¶7

This application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 664 of 2022 (State Vs. Teenu @ Mahendra Pratap Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0154 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Sasni Kotwali, District Hathras as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 03.06.2021 filed in the aforesaid case pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶8

On 13.10.2022, the following order was passed:-

¶9

"Sri Niketa Sharma, learned counsel, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 664 of 2022 (State Vs. Teenu @ Mahendra Pratap Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0154 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Sasni Kotwali, District Hathras as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 03.06.2021 filed in the aforesaid case pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the compromise.

¶14

Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court

¶15

below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

¶16

List after two months.

¶17

Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. "

¶18

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the report regarding verification of compromise received from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 03.05.2023. A letter of ACJM, Hathras dated 20.12.2022 has been placed on record along with affidavit as well as order dated 20.12.2022 vide which the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties and their respective counsels.

¶19

Learned counsel on behalf of applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶21

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1;

¶25

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303; and

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶30

Accordingly, entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 664 of 2022 (State Vs. Teenu @ Mahendra Pratap Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0154 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Sasni Kotwali, District Hathras on the basis of compromise are hereby quashed.

¶31

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

¶32

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 Arti

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Teenu @ Mahendra Pratap Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teenu @ Mahendra Pratap Singh and 5 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

Irfan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Prakash Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Gaurav Kumar Rajput and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrabali Saroj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Swayam Prakash Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and Another