Allowed

Jogendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2023A482/39985/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of criminal proceedings and orders following a settlement via a compromise deed. The court cited several Supreme Court precedents establishing that compromise is possible even in certain cognizable offences. Finding settlement occurred, the application was allowed, and proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No.1303 of 2019, the summoning order dated 16.03.2020, and the revisional order dated 01.09.2022 were quashed.

Jogendra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39985 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jogendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1303 of 2019 (Sonvati VS. Pervendra and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Chhatari, District Buland Shahar including the impugned summoning order dated 16.03.2020 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Buland Shahar and also quash to revisional order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Buland Shahar in Criminal Revision No.71 of 2022 (Jogendra Vs. State of UP and another).

¶7

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that parties settled the matter by way of compromise, a copy of the report of verified compromise deed as well as that of verification order has been placed before the Court, hence proceedings and impugned order are liable to be quashed.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 21.2.2023 Shahroz

¶19

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

Jogendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jogendra 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

Kaushar Begam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vedram Sharma Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Narayan Datta Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sukhvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Gupta Vs State of U.P and Another