Allowed

Phool Chnadra Gupta and 2 Ors. v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023A482/43871/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon finding that the applicants and respondents had entered into a compromise and settled the matter mutually, rendering further proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the charge sheet dated 08.12.2016, cognizance order dated 12.03.2018, and entire proceedings of Case No. 230 of 2018.

Phool Chnadra Gupta and 2 Ors. Vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155997

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43871 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Phool Chnadra Gupta And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Parmar,Hariom Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Singh Parmar

¶5

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

Heard Sri V.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Prashant Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 08.12.2016 along with cognizance order dated 12.03.2018 in Case No. 230 of 2018 (State vs. Phool Chandra Gupta and others) as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 230 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 336 IPC, P.S. Sarayinayat, District Allahabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Allahabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants submitted that parties have entered into compromise and a joint affidavit has also been filed before the this Court with swearing of applicant No. 2-Prabhakar Sahu and opposite party No. 2-Abhayraj Bind having the signatures of Sri V.S. Parmar and Sri S.K.S. Parmar, learned counsels appearing for both sides. Therefore, in the light of compromise, proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has not disputed the aforesaid facts and also submitted that in case aforesaid proceeding is quashed, he would have no objection.

¶10

In view of above, the applicants and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶11

Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi)

¶12

Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the judgement of the Apex Court reported in J.T. 2008(() SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another) , as well as judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab) and reported in (2014) Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶13

The present application is, accordingly allowed . No order as to costs.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Sartaj

¶15

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

Phool Chnadra Gupta and 2 Ors. v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Chnadra Gupta and 2 Ors. v. State of Up 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Yadav @ Bablu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sayyad Imran Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sameer Uberoi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Bind @ Manoj Ramjatan Kevat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nisha Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and Another