Allowed

Reeta Khari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2022/4401/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the summoning order. The prosecution opted for a compromise, which was verified by the trial court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents like Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, the court held that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings after settlement.

What did the court decide?

The impugned summoning order dated 25.4.2017 in Complaint Case No.2478 of 2016 was quashed.

Reeta Khari and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4401 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Reeta Khari And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ankit Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

In compliance of order dated 17.12.2021 passed by this Court the parties have appeared before the Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateI, District Sitapur along with original compromise dated 9.12.2021 for verification. Learned trial court in compliance of the order passed by this Court, learned ACJM-I District Sitapur has verified the compromise in the presence of the parties and the contents of the compromise have been read over and explained to the parties. The verification report dated 4.1.2022 given by the trial court is on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the parties i.e the petitioners and respondent no.2 submit that since the compromise/settlement has been arrived between the parties and the compromise has been verified by the learned court below, therefore, in view of the judgment of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, the proceedings pending before learned trial court are liable to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. for the State has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has been duly verified by the learned court below and also he has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the light of judgement of Gian Singh (supra) the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶9

Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of decisions, viz., Gian Singh Vs. State

¶10

of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further and the matter has been settled between the parties by way of the compromise and in view of law laid down in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter any further.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed quashing the impugned summoning order dated 25.4.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.2478 of 2016, Vishal Dixit vs. Ashok Khari and other, under Section 452,323,506,420 I.P.C. by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Room No.1, District Sitapur.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.1.2022

¶14

Madhu

Reeta Khari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reeta Khari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Lalit Tharu Vs State of U.P. Thru Its Secy Home Deptt Civil Secy U.P.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lucknow

Rakesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

M/S Kashish Enterprises Thru Prop Hameed Ullah Khan Vs State of U.P Thru Addl Chief Secy and Another

Shailendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Secy and Another

Deepak Ranjan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Anr.