Allowed

Raju @ Rajnikant and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023A482/38576/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 308, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC arising from Case Crime No. 785 of 2020. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed after the parties successfully entered into a compromise which was verified by the lower court, leading to the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Case No. 246 of 2022 under Sections 308, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC are quashed. No order as to costs.

Raju @ Rajnikant and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38576 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raju @ Rajnikant And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Vikram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. Office to register the same.

¶6

Heard Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Nisheeth Tripathi, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the records.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the the entire proceedings of Case No. 246 of 2022, 'State v. Raju and others', arising out of Case Crime No. 785 of 2020, under Sections 308, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

¶8

Earlier, on 19.01.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.246 of 2022 (State Vs. Raju and others) arising out of Case Crime No.785 of 2020, under Sections 308, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants states that matter has been compromised between the parties. He further states that the compromise dated 02.11.2022 (annexure-5) has been filed before the court below but same has not been verified as yet by the learned court below.

¶12

On these facts, the parties have arrived for some amicable settlement regarding which compromise duly arrived at between the parties is pending verification before learned court below and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to protect the right of the applicant pending final disposal of the matter. Learned counsel also submits that as the parties have entered into amicable settlement, there is no likelihood of conviction in the matter.

¶13

As an interim measure, till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶14

However, learned counsel for the applicants, as prayed, is granted three weeks time to get the compromise deed (annexure-5) verified from the court below and file a certified copy thereof, on or before the next date of listing before this Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file copy of this order before the court below within 15 days from today for compliance, failing which, interim protection given by this Court shall cease to operate and law will take its own course.

¶16

Put up as fresh on 20.02.2023."

¶17

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the court concerned has verified the compromise by order dated 04.03.2023 in the presence of parties along with their respective counsel. Certified copy of the aforesaid order has been brought on record as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the second opposite party do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶20

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013

¶27

(83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶28

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 shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶29

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 246 of 2022, 'State v. Raju and others', arising out of Case Crime No. 785 of 2020, under Sections 308, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, are hereby quashed.

¶30

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

¶31

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.

¶32

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 DS

¶33

Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju @ Rajnikant and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Rajnikant and 2 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

Jyoti Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mamta Baranwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Samujh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanwarpal@ Lala and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Zubair Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra Singh Sahani and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another