Allowed

Irfan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2023A482/43000/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an S. 482 CrPC application challenging proceedings under Sections 420, 323, and 504 IPC, the High Court of All India was satisfied that the parties had settled the dispute through a verified compromise deed. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench quashed the criminal proceedings, finding no useful purpose in continuing them.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings arising out of Charge Sheet No.181 of 2020 in Case Crime No.358 of 2019 are hereby quashed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43000 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Irfan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Rajnish Kumar Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sarvesh Kumar Mishra,Ved Prakash Pathak

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicants bringing on record the verification order as well as the certified copy of the verified compromise deed which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of Case No.5452 of 2021 (State Vs. Irfan and another) arising out of Charge Sheet No.181 of 2020 dated 30.06.2020 in Case Crime No.358 of 2019, under Sections 420, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly.

¶9

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that parties settled the matter by way of compromise, copy of the report of verified compromise deed has been placed before the Court by way of a supplementary affidavit, hence proceeding and impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶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

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Shahroz

¶21

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

Irfan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan and Another 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

Sarvajeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Beniwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheshnath and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivpujan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Sahai Vs State of U.P. and Another