Allowed¶15

Anuj Yadav and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2025A482/33350/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing on compromise; Session Case No. 382 of 2024; Case Crime No. 743 of 2020; Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C.; Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi; compromise dated 13.09.2024; trial court verification of compromise 06.03.2025; settlement of cognizable/non-compoundable offences; Narindra Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688; Shaifullah 2013 (83) ACC 278; Allahabad High Court; Deepak Verma, J.; 2025:AHC:84706.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 382 of 2024 (State Vs. Anuj Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 743 of 2020, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, quashed along with all consequential proceedings. ¶15

Anuj Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 382 of 2024 (State Vs. Anuj Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 743 of 2020 under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., pending before the learned Session Judge, District Jhansi, should be quashed on the ground of the compromise dated 13.09.2024 between the applicants and opposite party no. 2.

¶8

Court's answer

In view of the facts, circumstances and submissions, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of Session Case No. 382 of 2024.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The entire criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 382 of 2024 (State Vs. Anuj Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 743 of 2020, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, pending before the learned Session Judge, District Jhansi, is quashed.

¶15

Key takeaways

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:84706; Order Date 20.5.2025) allowed Application U/S 482 No. 33350 of 2024 and quashed the entire criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 382 of 2024 (State Vs. Anuj Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 743 of 2020 under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, pending before the learned Session Judge, Jhansi. The applicants and opposite party no. 2 had amicably settled their private and civil dispute by compromise dated 13.09.2024; on the Court's order dated 23.11.2024 the trial court verified the parties and the compromise application on 06.03.2025. Opposite party no. 2 raised no objection to quashing and the learned AGA conceded that the dispute was settled. Relying on Narindra Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, and referring to Shaifullah [2013 (83) ACC 278], the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings and quashed them.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84706

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33350 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anuj Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- G.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Diwas Verma,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 criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 382 of 2024 (State Vs. Anuj Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 743 of 2020, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sipri Bazar, District- Jhansi, pending before the court of learned Session Judge, District Jhansi on the ground of compromise dated 13.09.2024 and all consequential proceedings thereon.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 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 23.11.2024 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 06.03.2025 verified the parties as well as compromise application through their counsels. It is a no injury case. 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.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not

¶11

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.

¶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 criminal proceeding of Session Case No. 382 of 2024 (State Vs. Anuj Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 743 of 2020, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sipri Bazar, District- Jhansi, pending before the court of learned Session Judge, District Jhansi, are hereby quashed.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Aditya

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anuj Yadav and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Yadav and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

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