Allowed

Sajjan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023A482/5087/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving alleged offences under IPC Sections 323, 354, 394, and 506. Relying on a verified compromise, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 461/12 of 2019 in S.S.T. No. 151 of 2019 pending before the Special Judge, Kanpur Dehat.

Sajjan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5087 of 2023 Applicant :- Sajjan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Surat Yadav

¶2

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Ram Surat Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 461/12 of 2019 in S.S.T. No. 151 of 2019 (Ajay Kumar Vs. Sajjan and another), under Sections 323, 354, 394, 506 I.P.C. and N.B.W. order dated 16.12.2022, pending in the court of Special Judge (Bandit Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat, on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.

¶6

On 10.02.2023, this Court passed following orders in the matter:-

¶7

"Mr. Ram Surat Yadav, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Mr. Hari Nath Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ram Surat Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 461/12 of 2019 in S.S.T. No. 151 of 2019 (Ajay Kumar Vs. Sajjan and another), under Sections 323, 354, 394, 506 I.P.C., pending in the court of Special Judge (Bandit Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat as well as N.B.W. dated 16.12.2022 on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that both the parties are known to each other very well and the dispute between them is due to land. He further submits that on account of intervention of well-wishers of the applicants and opposite party no.2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise. On the basis of said compromise, an affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 before the court below that he does not want to press the criminal proceedings initiated by him against the applicants. It is, thus, contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of

¶11

law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶13

Put up this case on 27.03.2023 as fresh before the appropriate Bench.

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they shall make a fresh compromise application before the court below within a week from today for verification of the aforesaid compromise. They further undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 01.03.2023 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

¶15

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order within 24 hours.

¶16

Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order along with a fresh compromise application before the court concerned within a week from today.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case.

¶18

When the matter is listed next, name of Mr. Ram Surat Yadav, Advocate shall be shown as learned counsel for opposite party no.2."

¶19

Pursuant to the above order, the Third Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat vide order dated 16.02.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the Third Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat dated 16.02.2023 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants and affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.

¶21

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2,

¶22

he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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. 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 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶30

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 shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶31

Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 461/12 of 2019 in S.S.T. No. 151 of 2019 (Ajay Kumar Vs. Sajjan and another), under Sections 323, 354, 394, 506 I.P.C. and N.B.W. order dated 16.12.2022, pending in the court of Special Judge (Bandit Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat, are hereby quashed.

¶32

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Order Date :- 4.4.2023/Abhishek Singh

¶34

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

Sajjan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan and Another 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

Rajendra Bahadur and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Sunita and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shabana Bano Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu @ Brajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Musahid Khan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another