Allowed¶8

Amit and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2025A482/41173/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing on compromise; summoning order dated 10.09.2024; Complaint Case No. 453 of 2023; Case Crime No.94 of 2017; Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC; P.S. Khair, District Aligarh; Judicial Magistrate Khair; private dispute; same locality; no criminal antecedents; AGA no objection; Raj Beer Singh, J.; Allahabad High Court; 2025:AHC:29778; decided 3.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 453 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No.94 of 2017, Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC), including the summoning order dated 10.09.2024, against the nine named applicants, granted on the basis of the verified compromise between the parties. ¶8

Amit and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 453 of 2023, including the summoning order dated 10.09.2024, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh, may be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶2

Court's answer

It is well settled that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

As the instant matter relates to a private dispute between parties who are residents of the same locality, with nothing to indicate any criminal antecedents, quashing upon their compromise would have no adverse impact on society; the compromise having been verified by the trial court, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed.

¶6

Key takeaways

The entire impugned proceedings, including the summoning order, of Complaint Case No. 453 of 2023 against the applicants, namely Amit, Ravi Chaudhary, Rajat Chaudhary, Suresh, Chintu @ Devendra, Radhey Shyam, Vijay Pal, Veerpal and Pawan @ Anurag Chaudhary, were ordered quashed.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Raj Beer Singh, J.), Order dated 3.3.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:29778 — Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 41173 of 2024, Amit And 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another. The Court allowed the application and quashed the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 453 of 2023 (Ravi Prakash Vs. Amit & others), arising out of Case Crime No.94 of 2017, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh, including the summoning order dated 10.09.2024, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh, on the basis of a compromise between the parties verified by the trial court; the learned AGA had no objection. Holding that the matter was a private dispute between parties resident of the same locality, with no indication of criminal antecedents, so that quashing would have no adverse impact on society and was in the interest of justice.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29778

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41173 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Babu Vaish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 10.09.2024, of Complaint Case No. 453 of 2023 (Ravi Prakash Vs. Amit & others), arising out of Case Crime No.94 of 2017, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the alleged dispute between the parties has taken place due to misconception and that now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the complainant of the case and injured do not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. In the alleged incident no one has sustained any serious injury. Both the parties belong to the same locality. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court concerned, has already been verified by the court concerned, copy of which is on record. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of

¶9

compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.

¶11

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶12

It is well settled that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise. In the instant case, the matter relates to private dispute between the parties. If parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. Both the parties are residents of same locality. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, entire impugned proceedings, including summoning order, of the aforesaid case, against applicants, namely, Amit, Ravi Chaudhary, Rajat Chaudhary, Suresh, Chintu @ Devendra, Radhey Shyam, Vijay Pal, Veerpal & Pawan @ Anurag Chaudhary are hereby quashed.

¶14

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 3.3.2025

¶16

'SP'/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases