Allowed

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

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023A482/43508/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the charge-sheet and cognizance order under Section 482 CrPC relying on a compromise deed executed between parties regarding offences under Sections 323, 324, and 504 IPC. The court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings post-settlement.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of the aforesaid case including charge-sheet and cognizance order are quashed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43508 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu @ Pushpendra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Varinder Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashish Dwivedi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Varinder Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 08.05.2018 and cognizane order dated 18.09.2018 in Case No. 7404 of 2018 in Case No. 7404 of 2018 arising out of case crime no. 250 of 2018 under Sections 323, 324, 504 I.P.C, Police Station - Izaatnagar, District Bareilly, on the basis of compromise-deed dated 20.11.2018.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that parties settled the matter by way of compromise, copy of the report of verified compromise deed is filed today 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 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.02.2023.

¶19

Vinod.

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Pushpendra 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

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

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

Govind Parashar Vs State of U.P and Another