Allowed

Vivek and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2025A482/34201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a compromise between the accused and the informant. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to hold that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet dated 31.10.2020, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings.

Vivek and 11 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54691

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34201 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vivek And 11 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhakar Yadav

¶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; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 31.10.2020; cognizance/summoning order dated 22.03.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 4500 of 2021, CNR No. UPMO01-006730-2021 (State Vs. Ved Prakash and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 416 of 2020, Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 325, 504 IPC, Police StationKundarki, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Moradabad, in pursuance of compromise dated 29.03.2024.

¶9

As per F.I.R., the applicants entered into the house of opposite party no. 2 with sharp edged weapon and assaulted the family members of informant on account of some dispute with regard to animals. As a result, the informant and other persons received injury. Counsel for the applicant submits that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature and both the parties have settled the dispute out of the court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 directed the parties to appear before the court below and file the compromise deed.

¶10

Pursuant to the said order dated 27.11.2024, the parties appeared before the court below and in their presence, after due verification of the contents of the compromise made between the parties, order dated 03.01.2025 has been passed by the court verifying the said compromise. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure- S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the

¶12

applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled their private and civil dispute through compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶15

Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 ; Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 529, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another; (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2014) Supreme Today 642, the proceedings of Case No. 4500 of 2021, CNR No. UPMO01006730-2021 (State Vs. Ved Prakash and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2020, Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 325, 504 IPC, Police Station- Kundarki, District- Moradabad, is hereby quashed.

¶16

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Meenu Singh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek and 11 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tasleem and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Saini vs State of U.P. and Another

Ghanshyam Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunita Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Mal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another