Allowed

Sooraj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2023A482/42033/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a family dispute. Relying on a verified compromise deed and settled principles, the court concluded no useful purpose would be served by further prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Case No. 420 of 2021 arising from Crime No. 10 of 2020 were set aside.

Sooraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42033 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sooraj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Paritosh Sukla,Krishna Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Kant Tiwari and Sri Amit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding in pursuance of charge sheet no. 43 of 2020 dated 23.12.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 2.8.2021 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/FTC/A.C.J.M. Bijnor in Case no. 420 of 2021 (State Vs. Sooraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 10 of 2020, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the matter has been compromised between the parties and compromise deed dated 19.11.2022 has been filed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application and the copy of the same has also been filed before the court below. The court below has verified the same on 7.4.2023 and has sent its report to this Court. It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) and has submitted that since the mater has been compromised between the parties amicably, hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution of the applicant in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the opp. party no.2, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed further with the matter.

¶9

In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 19.11.2022, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶10

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014), Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another,J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶11

The present application is accordingly allowed.

¶12

Order Date :- 8.5.2023/A.

¶13

Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sooraj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sooraj and 3 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

Laxmi Shanker Upadhyay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rita Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajkumar Soni Vayask Vs Mahendra Yadav Vayask

Manniram @ Munni Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Keshav Kumar @ Keshav Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Dharmendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another