Allowed

Lavkush Sahni and 7 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2020A482/443/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant challenged proceedings arising from a dispute involving bailable offences. The court noted a compromise between the parties, evidenced by their presence in court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing settlements for certain cognizable offences, the court held no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial and quashed the

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of S.T. No. 82 of 2012 involving the applicant and opposites party is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Lavkush Sahni and 7 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 443 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Lavkush Sahni And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madhup Narain Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Girish Chandra Maurya

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Madhup Narain Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Charge-sheet no.53 of 2011, dated 27.07.2011 as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 82 of 2012 (State Vs. Lovkush & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 442 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Uska Bazar, District-Siddharth Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. Ist, Siddharth Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The opposite party no.2 has lodged the F.I.R. against the applicants bearing Case Crime No. 442 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Uska Bazar, District-Siddharth Nagar in which the parties have entered into compromise as is clear from the application which is moved on behalf of the applicants and copy of the same has been appended as Annexure no.3 to the application. For the same incident, a cross case has been lodged by the applicants against the opposite party no.2 and others which has been registered as Case Crime No. 442A of 2011, under Section 147, 452, 308, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Uska Bazar, District-Siddharth Nagar wherein the parties have also entered into compromised as is clear from the Annexure no.7 to this application. Subsequently, the charge sheet has been submitted in both the cases but the parties have entered into compromised in both the cases.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the

¶10

present FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.

¶11

In the above regard, a compromise has been entered into between the parties.

¶12

Today, the applicant no.1, namely, Lavkush Sahni on behalf of all the applicants and the opposite party no.2, namely, Radhey Shyam Yadav (informant) are present in Court, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them.

¶13

On the instruction received, learned counsel for applicants submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶14

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶15

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶16

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

¶17

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶18

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶19

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶20

In the aforesaid judgments, 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

¶21

in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶22

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 shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶23

Accordingly, the proceedings of S.T. No. 82 of 2012 (State Vs. Lovkush & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 442 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Uska Bazar, District-Siddharth Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. Ist, Siddharth Nagar, are hereby quashed.

¶24

The application is, accordingly, allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Order Date :- 13.1.2020 JK Yadav

Lavkush Sahni and 7 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavkush Sahni and 7 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

Sandeep Rathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indresh Raja Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awnish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deep Prakash Vs State of Up and Another

Ameer Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another