Allowed

Shyam Bihari Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022/4043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings regarding cheating and mischief. Relying on established precedents, the court quashed the proceedings and the summons to face trial as a genuine compromise between the parties had been entered into, rendering further prosecution futile.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge-sheet, order summoning the applicant to face trial, and the pending proceedings of Case No.27260 of 2022 so far as they relate to the applicant.

Shyam Bihari Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4043 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shyam Bihari Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Tiwari,Kailash Nath Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard and perused the record.

¶6

By way of this application under Section 482 CrPC the applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet no.1/2019 dated 17.10.2019 filed in FIR No.0377 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 379 IPC lodged at Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow, for quashing of the order dated 12.04.2022 by means of which the applicant has been summoned to face trial and for quashing of the proceedings of Case No.27260 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Lucknow, so far as it relates to the applicant.

¶7

The ground, on which quashing of the impugned proceedings have been prayed for, is a compromise entered into between the parties by putting their signatures on the same. The compromise dated 25.02.2020 has been placed on record as Annexure No. 4 to the application.

¶8

To check veracity of the compromise, the parties were directed to present before this Court vide order dated 01.08.2022 and, pursuant to that, applicant, Shyam Bihari Ram and respondent no. 2, Smt. Saroj Khan are present today. They are duly identified by their respective counsels. Both the parties say that they have entered into the compromise and settled their dispute/difference outside the Court.

¶9

In view of above and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it would be appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the same would be an exercise in futility.

¶10

Hence, this application is allowed . Consequently, the impugned proceedings are hereby quashed, so far they relate to the applicant only.

¶11

The compromise, entered into between the parties, shall be made part of this order and, while, issuing certified copy of this order, the office shall issue certified copy of the compromise also.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.8.2022 MVS/-

¶13

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.08.22 17:57:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyam Bihari Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Bihari Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Shashi Kant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dukhraja Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Sachin @ Satyendra (Minor) Thru. His Brother Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Abhishek Bhansali Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nirmala W/O Papu (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home