Allowed

Sovran Singh Nanik Ram and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2023A482/39572/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 308, and 384 IPC. The Court held that the entire trial under S.T. No. 1225 of 2021 should be quashed as the parties entered into a compromise verified by the Additional District Judge.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of S.T. No. 1225 of 2021, State vs. Sovran Singh and others, arising out of Crime No. 563 of 2015, were quashed.

Sovran Singh Nanik Ram and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39572 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sovran Singh Nanik Ram And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hans Nath Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Sri Hans Nath Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 1225 of 2021 (State Vs. Sovran Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 563 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 308, 384 I.P.C., Police Station New Agra, District Agra, pending in the court of 12th Additional District Judge, Agra on the basis of the compromise.

¶7

On 7th December, 2022, the Court has passed following order:

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. State is represented through learned A.G.A.

¶9

This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of S.T. No1225 of 2021 (State vs. Sovran Singh and ors) U/s 147, 148, 149, 325, 308, 384 IPC, P.S. New Agra, District Agra pending in the court of 12th Additional District Judge Agra.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have entered into a compromise. The terms and conditions have been entered into a compromise which is annexure no.8.

¶11

The parties shall appear before the trial court and file the said compromise within three weeks and file the compromise. The trial court after due identification, verify the compromise. The trial Judge shall forward to this Court a duly verified copy of the compromise entered into between the parties along with a copy of his order verifying the compromise which shall be before the next date fixed.

¶12

List on 12.01.2023 as fresh.

¶13

Till the next date of listing, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants in the aforesaid case crime. "

¶14

Pursuant to the above order, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Agra vide order dated 02.01.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copy of the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Agra order dated 02.01.2023 and the compromise has been brought on record as annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.

¶16

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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 complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶25

Accordingly, the proceedings of S.T. No. 1225 of 2021 (State

¶26

Vs. Sovran Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 563 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 308, 384 I.P.C., Police Station New Agra, District Agra, pending in the court of 12th Additional District Judge, Agra, are hereby quashed.

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 28.2.2023 Abhishek Singh

¶29

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

Sovran Singh Nanik Ram and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sovran Singh Nanik Ram and 7 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

Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Adil Shamim and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adya Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Smt Diksha Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another