Rahul Agrawal v. State of U.P & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466. In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also…
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.142 of 2019 (State Vs. Rahul Agrawal) arising out of Case Crime No.45 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that parties settled the matter by way of compromise, copy of the report of verified compromise deed has been placed before the Court, hence proceeding and impugned order is liable to be quashed. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677].
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466. In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable 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 the law expounded by the 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 the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned cases. The application is, accordingly, allowed. In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby, quashed. It is made clear that the amount i.e. Rs.15,000/- which was deposited by the applicant in compliance of the order dated 14.01.2020 shall be returned to the applicant within two weeks as, according to the counsel for the applicant, opposite party no.2 had not appeared before the mediation center. Order Date :- 19.1.2023 Shahroz SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 19 Jan 2023. The bench was UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.