Held the matter is quitashable due to a voluntary and genuine compromise. The arrested person is released and proceedings are quashed.
Proceedings of ST No.13 of 2012 against the applicants are hereby quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4732 of 2018
Applicant :- Kamla And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nand Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this application under Section 482 CrPC the applicants have come to this Court for a direction to the Additional District Judge/FTC, Mahoba to decide ST No.13 of 2012 (State Vs. Rakesh Chaubey and others) having Case Crime No.505 of 2011, under Sections 307, 325, 324, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Shrinagar, District Mahoba in view of the compromise held between the parties on 15.01.2018 (annexure-2 to this application) or with a prayer to pass such an order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite parties submit that parties settled the matter by way of compromise, copy of the report of verified compromise deed has been placed before the Court, hence proceeding and impugned order is liable to be quashed.
The attention of this Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677].
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
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.
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.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Shahroz
Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed due to a post-crime compromise between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶9
(2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶9
[2008) 9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersReferred¶9
( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶15
2013 (83) ACC 278
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamla And 2 Others
Umesh Chandra Sharma
Shahroz Alam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
