Hon'ble Court No. 72 allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal case No. 2372 of 2020. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court upheld quashing based on the parties meeting via a verified compromise deed, deeming further proceedings unnecessary.
Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2372 of 2020 were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39936 of 2022
Applicant :- Sheshnath And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar,Arvind Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2372 of 2020 (State Vs. Seshnath Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0057 of 2020, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 324, 452, 308 IPC, Police Station Visunpura, District Kushinagar including the charge sheet dated 31.03.2020 submitted before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kushinagar.
Perusal of the record shows that in compliance of the order dated 03.12.2022, after verification of the compromise deed a certified copy of the verified compromise deed alongwith its covering letter has been sent by the concerned court.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that parties have settled the matter by way of compromise, copy of the report of verified compromise deed has been placed before the Court, hence proceeding and impugned order is liable to be quashed.
The attention of this Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
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. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
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. 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.
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.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby, quashed.
Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Shahroz
Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed upon filing of a verified compromise deed between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶9
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶9
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersReferred¶9
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶15
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ACC 278
Sheshnath And 3 Others
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
