# Surjeet Singh and others v. The State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 829 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-07-25 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 3812 of 2010 - **Bench:** S. S.Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surjeet-singh-and-others-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-another-41967 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Criminal Procedure Code-Section 482Quashing Criminal Proceedings in terms of compromise-offence under Section 498-A/323/342/504/506 IPC and 3⁄4 D.P.Act-held in view of B.S.Joshi case-no useful purpose to prolong the Criminal Proceeding any further-proceeding quashed. Case law discussed: 2003 AIR 1386 ## Text 2 All] Surjeet Singh and others V. The State of U.P. and another 829 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 25.07.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S. S.CHAUHAN, J. U/S 482/378/407 No. - 3268 of 2011 Surjeet Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of U.P. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Jagjeet Singh Sri Pratima Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.N.Pandey Govt. Advocate Criminal Procedure Code-Section 482Quashing Criminal Proceedings in terms of compromise-offence under Section 498-A/323/342/504/506 IPC and 3⁄4 D.P.Act-held in view of B.S.Joshi case-no useful purpose to prolong the Criminal Proceeding any further-proceeding quashed. Case law discussed: 2003 AIR 1386 (Delivered by Hon'ble S. S. Chauhan,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA. 2. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record. 3. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the parties have entered into compromise. A certified copy of the said compromise arrived at between the parties under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been placed on record. 4. Counsel for the parties state that in the compromise both the parties have agreed that they will not pursue the criminal cases as well as other cases pending in different courts. The said compromise also indicates that criminal case pending here is also governed by the said compromise. 5. Since there is admission and both the parties in dispute are agree that the matter may be decided in terms of the compromise, therefore, the charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 498-A/323/342/504/506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act is liable to be quashed. Law in this regard has been settled by the apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003 AIR 1386 and no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the criminal proceedings any further when the parties have entered into compromise. 6. The petition is allowed in terms of the compromise. The charge sheet No. 27 of 2009 relating to case Crime No. 73 of 2008 under Sections 498A/323/342/504/506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act of P.S. Mahila Thana Hazratganj, District Lucknow is hereby quashed including consequential proceedings. 7. The compromise shall form part of this order. --------- 830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 25.07.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 3812 of 2010 Neeraj Goswami and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of U.P. and another ...Opposite Parties Criminal Procedure Code-Section 482Criminal Proceeding pending before C.J.M. Lucknow-challenged on ground of territorial jurisdiction-all the allegations of F.I.R. disclosed the happenings at Gurgaon (Haryana)-hence any exercise by C.J.M. Lucknow without jurisdictionheld-misconceived-question of jurisdiction can be raised only after Postcognizance and not prior to cognizance Held: Para 14 With the aforesaid observations the Hon'ble Supreme court ultimately held that the jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant only when the question of enquiry or trial arises. It is therefore, fallacious thinking that only a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case has the power to take cognizance of the offence. If he is a Magistrate of the First Class his power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions. After taking cognizance he may have to decide as to the court which has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence and that situation would reach only during the post-cognizance stage and not earlier. Case law discussed: 2004 (II) UP Cr.R Page 315; 2007 (1) UPCr. R Page 282; 2008 (61) ACC 668; 1998 (37) ACC page 860; 2009 (1) JIC 600 (All); 2000 JIC 1 (SC); 2007 (3) JIC 258 (SC); 1999 (8) SCC 686 (Delivered by Hon'ble S.N.Shukla,J.) 1. Heard Mr.Vijay Prakash, learned Advocate alongwith Mr.Girish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Suresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings of Case No.11032 of 2010, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, arising out of case Crime No.72 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 313, 323,406 and 506 IPC and 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Lucknow, inter alia on the ground of jurisdiction of the trial court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this court towards the contents of the First Information Report and submitted that all the incidents, which have been alleged to have taken place at Gurgaon, State of Haryana, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sitting at Lucknow has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed with the case. 4. In support of his submission he cited several decisions, which are being discussed here-in-below:- 5. Y. Abraham Ajith and others versus Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, reported in 2004(II), UPCr.R, page 315. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the scope of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that there is not even a whisper of allegations about