Anshu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anshu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.02.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Moradabad; the proceedings of Case No. 2176 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 1160 of 2010 (Sections 354, 504, 323 IPC), Police Station G.R.P. Moradabad; and charge sheet no. 3/2011 dated 4.1.2011; application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.02.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Moradabad, the proceedings of Case No. 2176 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 1160 of 2010 (Sections 354, 504, 323 IPC) and charge sheet no. 3/2011 (dated 4.1.2011) should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 19.02.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Moradabad, the proceedings of Case No. 2176 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 1160 of 2010 (Sections 354, 504, 323 IPC), and charge sheet no. 3/2011 (dated 4.1.2011), Police Station G.R.P. Moradabad, District Moradabad, are quashed.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the facts and circumstances, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the settlement between the applicants and opposite party no. 2, this Court formed the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

Key takeaways

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 84; Deepak Verma, J.; decided 15.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:79993) allows a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application and QUASHES the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.02.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Moradabad, the proceedings of Case No. 2176 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 1160 of 2010 under Sections 354, 504, 323 IPC (PS G.R.P. Moradabad), and charge sheet no. 3/2011 dated 4.1.2011. Ground: applicants and opposite party no. 2 (informant) had amicably settled their private dispute; pursuant to the High Court's order dated 04.09.2024 the trial court verified the parties and compromise on 02.12.2024, and the verified compromise deed was filed by supplementary affidavit; counsel for opposite party no. 2 raised no objection, and the AGA submitted there was no reason to proceed further. Reliance placed on Narindra Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, and Shaifullah v. State of U.P. [2013 (83) ACC 278] (compromise permissible even in certain cognizable/noncompoundable offences).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79993

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29442 of 2024

Applicant :- Anshu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey,Phool Chandra Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dharmendra Kumar Patel,G.A.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

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

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the cognizance\summoning order dated 19.02.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Moradabad as well as quash the proceeding of case No. 2176 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 1160 of 2010, Under Sections 354,504,323 I.P.C. as well as charge sheet no. 3/2011, (Dated 4.1.2011), Police Station G.R.P. Moradabad, District Moradabad.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. It is no injury case. 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 04.09.2024 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 02.12.2024 verified the parties as well as compromise application. Verified compromise deed has been filed by way of filing supplementary affidavit. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is 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.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does 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 no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

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

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.

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.

Accordingly, the impugned cognizance\summoning order dated 19.02.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Moradabad as well as proceeding of case No. 2176 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 1160 of 2010, Under Sections 354,504,323 I.P.C. and charge sheet no. 3/2011, (Dated 4.1.2011), Police Station G.R.P. Moradabad, District Moradabad, is hereby quashed .

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

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Nitin Verma

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