Allowed

Mani Ram @ Maniya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023A482/3786/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. The compromise between the applicants and the opposite party was finalized, filed before the trial court, and verified by the Special Judge, satisfying the conditions for quashing established by the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of S.T. No.143 of 2008 are quashed and the application is allowed.

Mani Ram @ Maniya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3786 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mani Ram @ Maniya And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshman Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Lakshman Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Arti Agarwal, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants Mani Ram @ Maniya, Maiyadeen, Devi Deen and Shiv Kumar with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of S.T. No.143 of 2008, State Vs. Saiyaddeen and others u/s 395, 397 IPC, P.S. Ait, District Jalaun pending in the court of Special Judge Dacoity Orai at Jalaun on the basis of compromise and further to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and opp. party No.2 have compromised the dispute on 17.9.2022. It is argued that as the dispute between the parties was compromised, the applicants earlier filed Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.33674 of 2022 (Mani Ram @ Maniya and 3 others Vs. State of U.P and another) in which vide order dated 16.11.2022, coordinate Bench of this Court directed the parties to appear before the concerned court for filing a proper compromise deed along with said order and directed the trial court to verify the said compromise, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.6 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. In pursuance of the said order, the applicants appeared before the trial court and filed the compromise deed before the trial court. It is argued that the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Jalaun at Orai vide order dated 14.12.2022 verified the said compromise, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.7 to the affidavit filed in support of present application, as such the proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State admitted the fact of compromise and stated that he has no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicant.

¶10

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably, the said compromise has been also been verified by the trial court.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 applicant(s).

¶13

The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶14

The present application is allowed.

¶15

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 Gaurav

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mani Ram @ Maniya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Ram @ Maniya and 3 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

Ankit Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shikha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Wajid and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nafees and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irshad Alias Gappa and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jeeviteshwar Kamlesh Anagh @ Kamlesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another