Allowed

Naresh Rai v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2023A482/41002/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising from an offence under Sections 307 IPC, the High Court is to consider the quashing of entire proceedings including an impugned order based on a compromise agreement entered between the applicant and the opposite party after the dispute was settled.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 06.09.2013 and entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 122 of 2013 under Sections 307/34 IPC were quashed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41002 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Naresh Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Chandra Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Satya Narayan Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Sri Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 06.09.2013 as well as entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 122 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Naresh Rai), arising out of Case Crime No. 596 of 2013, under Section 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, on the basis of compromise dated 12.10.2022 entered between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the dispute between the parties arose out of petty dispute; the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged; there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred; the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In the above regard, a written compromise has been entered into between the parties a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure No. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant. Original copy of the same has also been filed before the Court below and the Court below after ensuring the presence of both the parties have verified the same vide order dated 4th March, 2023 a copy of which has been brought on record at page-10 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Accordingly, the order dated 06.09.2013 as well as entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 122 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Naresh Rai), arising out of Case Crime No. 596 of 2013, under Sections 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, pending in the court of Additional district and Sessions Judge (I), Lalitpur, are hereby quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 15.3.2023 Abhishek Singh

¶22

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

Naresh Rai v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Rai 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

Manish @ Monu Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Durgesh @ Durgesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjit Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another