Allowed

Smt. Balwinder Kaur @ Kiran v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2023A482/42803/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 CrPC was filed to quash criminal proceedings based on a post-filing compromise. The court referred to Apex Court judgments allowing compromise in cognizable offences, verified the deed, and quashed the proceedings as no useful purpose would be served by prolonging them.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in Case No. 855 of 2022 are hereby quashed. The application is allowed.

Smt. Balwinder Kaur @ Kiran Vs State of U.P and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42803 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Balwinder Kaur @ Kiran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Chitranshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

None respond for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

¶7

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Case No. 855 of 2022 in case crime no. 354 of 2016 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 324 I.P.C & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Cantt. Bareilly arising out of charge - sheet no. 02 dated 15.09.2021 (State Vs. Gurmeet Singh & Ors). pending in the Court of Judicial Magisrate-I, Bareilly on the basis of compromise.

¶8

Vide order dated 18.10.2022 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 24372 of 2022 (Umed Singh & 2 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) the parties were directed to get the compromise deed verified.

¶9

In compliance of above order, the parties appeared before the court concerned i.e J.M Ist Bareilly on 15.11.2022 and moved a compromise deed, which has been verified same day and an order of verification was passed on 22.11.2022.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.1.2023 Vinod.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Balwinder Kaur @ Kiran v. State of U.P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Balwinder Kaur @ Kiran v. State of U.P and 3 Others

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

Ravi Kumar Jain and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zabbar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Another

Netrapal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ruchi Mittal @ Smt Ruchi Garg Vs State of U.P. and Another