Allowed

Vishwa Alok Shekhar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023A482/38748/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial offence, this Court allowed the petition. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding compromise in cognizable offences, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in Case Crime No.0048 of 2018 arising from Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and DP Act were quashed.

Vishwa Alok Shekhar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38748 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vishwa Alok Shekhar And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.0048 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Mahila Thana (Saifai), District Etawah pending before the Additional Civil Judge (FTC/JM) Court, (crime against women), Etawah in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 13.11.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 11.01.2019.

¶8

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that parties settled the matter by way of compromise, copy of the report of verified compromise deed and that of the verification order have been placed before the Court, hence proceeding and impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶9

The attention of this Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-

¶10

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

¶11

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677].

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶19

In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby, quashed.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.2.2023 Shahroz

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishwa Alok Shekhar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwa Alok Shekhar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajju Prasad Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashi Prakash and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manjoor and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Govind Parashar Vs State of U.P and Another

Sonu @ Pushpendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another