Single judge allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings and charge-sheet arising from a domestic dispute. The court held that a valid settlement between parties served as a ground for quashing the case.
The entire proceedings, charge-sheet dated 24.02.2017, and cognizance order dated 26.04.2017 were 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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7016 of 2023
Applicant :- Avnish And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants- Avnish, Bhupendra Singh, Smt. Veenita and Dharmendra with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 24.02.2017 & cognizance order dated 26.04.2017 in Case No. 689 of 2017 (State Vs. Bhupendra Singh Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 703 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Etmaddaula, District Agra pending in pursuance to the compromise dated 23.10.2019 between the parties, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Agra with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicants during the pendency of the present application.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and the opposite party No.2 have compromised the dispute, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.6 and the copy of the statement of the opposite party no.2 is annexed as Anneuxre-7 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. It is further argued that the said compromise has also been filed before the concerned trial court, as such the proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.
From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of
settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (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) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.
From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.
The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
The present application is allowed .
Order Date :- 27.2.2023 AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed upon the filing of a compromise deed between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherRelied on¶10
(1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationRelied on¶10
(2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersRelied on¶10
(3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶10
(4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherRelied on¶10
(5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278
Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and anotherRelied on¶10
(6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Avnish And 3 Others
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
