Allowed

Darshan@ Dooni and 10 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2023A482/4670/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under various IPC sections. The Court upheld the petition considering factors like amicable settlement and voluntary compromise among parties, while ordering deposit of costs to the State exchequer due to delay caused.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 638 of 2015, subject to deposit of Rs. 50,000 in State exchequer within one month.

Darshan@ Dooni and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116247

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4670 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Darshan@ Dooni And 10 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Criminal Misc Amendment Application No of 2023

¶7

This is an application moved by applicants seeking amendment in the array of parties as well as in the prayer clause.

¶8

Since there is no objection to the other side, the application is allowed.

¶9

Counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary amendment in the array of parties as well as in the prayer clause of the application during the course of the day.

¶10

Order on Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶12

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of the charge sheet dated 19.08.2016 submitted in Case Crime No. 638 of 2015, under Sections 147,148,149,452,354,307,504,506 IPC, P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶13

The parties, out of their own free will, have settled their dispute amicably and in furtherance thereof, they have filed a compromise deed before the Court below. Thereafter, this Court, vide order dated 23.03.2023, has sent the said compromise deed to the trial court with a direction to get the same verified and submit a report.

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties have not disputed the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they have filed compromise deed before the court below and the same has been verified by the trial Court, vide order dated 18.04.2023, kept on record of this case.

¶15

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the court below has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed to the extent that the parties and contents of the compromise deed are genuine and they have entered into the compromise by free-will.

¶16

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case. However, a joint affidavit has also been filed by the parties contending therein that the opposite party no. 2 as informant and injured witnesses are not interested in pursuing the criminal case and they have stated that the dispute has been settled between the parties and both the parties are living peacefully in the village.

¶17

However, learned AGA for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts of compromise entered into between the parties but vis-a-vis submitted that since, the state machinery has been put in action on the basis of a quarrel, which had taken place between the two parties, thereby, causing huge loss of time and money of the State machinery, and thereafter present applicants have moved this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings after filing of the charge sheet on the basis of compromise, therefore, it would be appropriate that some costs be imposed on the parties.

¶18

Therefore, in view of the above and considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 638 of 2015, under Sections 147,148,149,452,354,307,504,506 IPC, P.S. Jhinjhana,

¶19

District Shamli are hereby quashed, provided the parties deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the State exchequer for causing loss of time and money of the State machinery within one month from the date of this order.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.5.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶22

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

Darshan@ Dooni and 10 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan@ Dooni and 10 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

Dr. Gautendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Preeti and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brij Mohan Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Ambuj Mishra Vs State of U.P.