Allowed

Neeraj v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 May 2023A482/44491/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings based on a verified compromise between the applicant and the opposite party. The court held that prolonging proceedings served no useful purpose as the dispute was settled.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2594 of 2019 under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC were quashed on the basis of the verified compromise.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100273

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44491 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Saini,Ashutosh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S S Sisodiya

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S S Sisodiya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

On 13.12.2019, the following order was passed:-

¶8

"Sri S.S. Sisodiya, leaned counsel filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2594 of 2019 (State vs. Neeraj) under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 522 of 2012, Police Station- Indirapuram, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) 5th, Ghaziabad.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the charge sheet had been submitted, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶13

Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of one month from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

¶14

Put up on 21st January, 2020 as fresh.

¶15

Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."

¶16

In compliance of the aforesaid order, report from concerned Court has been placed on record as is evident from office report dated 10.02.2020. A letter of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghaziabad dated 24.01.2020 has been placed along with order dated 02.01.2020 vide which compromise has been verified in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels.

¶17

Learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of the aforesaid compromise being verified by the Court concerned, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed by this Court.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also affirms that the parties have entered into compromise, they have no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶19

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶28

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2594 of 2019 (State vs. Neeraj), under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 522 of 2012, Police StationIndirapuram, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) 5th, Ghaziabad, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed .

¶29

The application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶30

Order Date :- 9.5.2023 Rahul.

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Shivam Gaur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kannaujiya Alias Rakesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalpana Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Shashikala and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Rashmi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others