Allowed

Vineet Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023A482/43221/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after verifying a compromise between the applicant and the opposite party. The compromise terminated the dispute, leading to the quashing of the criminal case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 3121 of 2020 arising out of Crime No. 648 of 2019.

Vineet Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43221 of 2022 Applicant :- Vineet Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ehtesham Afsar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ehtesham Afsar Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri K.P. Pathak learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash cognizance order dated 05.9.2020, chargesheet dated 24.1.2020 and proceedings of Case No. 3121 of 2020, 'State v. Vineet Kumar and 2 others', arising out of Case Crime No. 648 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.

¶6

Earlier, on 27.02.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the cognizance order dated 5.9.2020, charge sheet dated 24.1.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.3121 of 2020, State Vs. Vineet Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.648 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have entered into a compromise.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. submits that the compromise effected between the parties may be verified before the court concerned.

¶11

In the interest of justice, the applicant and the opposite party no.2 are directed to appear before the court concerned on 15th March, 2023 and shall submit the compromise, which shall be verified by the court concerned and a report in this regard shall be submitted before this Court within 15 days thereafter.

¶12

List on 5th April, 2023 as fresh.

¶13

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed."

¶14

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the court concerned has verified the compromise by order dated 15.3.2023 in the presence of parties along with their respective counsel. Certified copy of the aforesaid order has been brought on record along with the communication of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly dated 15.3.2023.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶17

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶25

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 3121 of 2020, 'State v. Vineet Kumar and 2 others', arising out of Case Crime No. 648 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly are hereby quashed.

¶26

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

¶27

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 5.4.2023 DS

¶28

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

Vineet Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar and 2 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

Smt Gudiya @ Ruksar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raghubir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaheer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Shiv Gopal Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Usman and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another