Allowed

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

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023A482/41120/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an application to quash criminal proceedings arising from a compromise between the accused and the victim. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the trial and quashed the charge sheet and cognizance order.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet, cognizance order, and criminal proceedings in ST No.218 of 2022 were quashed.

Manjoor and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41120 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manjoor And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Jeet Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Ojha

¶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 charge sheet dated 20.02.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut as well as the criminal proceedings of ST No.218 of 2022 (State Vs. Manjoor and others) arising out of Case Crime No.389 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354(Ka), 376, 511, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 DP Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Saroorpur, District Meerut pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Meerut.

¶7

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.

¶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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 27.2.2023 Shahroz

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Govind Parashar Vs State of U.P and Another

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