Uday Bhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52444

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22246 of 2024

Applicant :- Uday Bhan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Kumar,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of S.T. No.397 of 2007 (State Vs. Uday Bhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.166 of 2006, Under Section 308, 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mahrajganj, District Azamgarh pending in the court of A.D.J., Court No.7, Azamgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 and 3 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 482 application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 06.08.2024 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 11.09.2024 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 and 3 compromised the matter and opposite party nos.2 and 3 do not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party nos.2 and 3 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party nos.2 and 3 do not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party nos.2 and 3 are ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 do not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party nos.2 and 3 have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are

¶11

quashed.

¶12

Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

¶13

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and noncompoundable 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, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶15

Accordingly, the entire proceeding of S.T. No.397 of 2007 (State Vs. Uday Bhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.166 of 2006, Under Section 308, 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mahrajganj, District Azamgarh pending in the court of A.D.J., Court No.7, Azamgarh, is hereby quashed.

¶16

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Nitin Verma

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Uday Bhan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Bhan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases