Quashed

Jitendra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2023A482/9468/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Single Judge of Allahabad High Court accepted a verified compromise between the applicant and the State regarding non-compoundable offences including 498-A IPC. Finding that continuing proceedings would serve no purpose and cause harassment, the Court quashed the criminal case to secure the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in Case No. 230 of 2020 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act are quashed.

Jitendra Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9468 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State who has no objections if order be passed in terms of the compromise.

¶6

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Case No. 230 of 2020, State vs. Jitendra Kumar & others, (arising out of Case Crime No. 469 of 2019), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sadar, District Mathura, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

¶7

In compliance with the order dated 29.03.2023, a report of the Civil Judge (J.D.), FTC (Crime Against Women)/Judicial Magistrate Mathura dated 04.04.2023 has been received reporting the fact that compromise between parties has been verified. Along with the report, a copy of compromise application dated 17.01.2022 together with affidavits and a copy of the order dated 04.04.2023 verifying the compromise, all xerox copies, have been enclosed. The compromise has been verified after identification.

¶8

Learned AGA states that looking to the nature of the offences, the State though the forerunner of the prosecution, does not have much objection to advance. The offence is one which does not have wide social ramification.

¶9

A perusal of the papers shows that the parties have duly verified the compromise and in terms of the compromise they do not wish to prosecute the case any further.

¶10

The purport of the compromise is that the complainant/opposite party does not want to prosecute the impugned proceedings any further. Since the offences charged are not compoundable, the applicants have approached this Court invoking our jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

¶11

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the compromise and its verification by the learned Magistrate, this

¶12

Court is of opinion that permitting the proceedings impugned to continue would be an exercise in futility and harassment of parties. It would also lead to wastage of time, energy and resources with no profit to anyone. In the circumstances, in order to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings ought to be quashed.

¶13

In the result this application succeeds and is allowed.

¶14

The proceedings of Case No. 230 of 2020, State vs. Jitendra Kumar & others, (arising out of Case Crime No. 469 of 2019), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sadar, District Mathura, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, are hereby quashed.

¶15

An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of Police Station Sadar, District Mathura that all proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 469 of 2019 stand quashed under orders of this Court. It shall be ensured by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura that this part of the order is carried out in the GD of the Police Station concerned.

¶16

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura through the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura and the S.H.O., P.S. Sadar, District Mathura, through the Superintendent of Police, Mathura, by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week. Order Date :- 6.4.2023 Vijay

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudheer Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Expo Trans India Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devi Sharan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others