Allowed

Satish Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secty. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023/4984/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 384 IPC after the applicants and respondents amicably settled their dispute via a compromise deed verified by the trial court, citing precedent allowing quashing in compromiseable offences.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Case No. 97 of 2023, arising from Crime No. 48 of 2020 under Section 384 IPC at Bangermau Police Station, Unnao, were quashed.

Satish Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42330

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4984 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Satish Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secty. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jayveer Rajput

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayveer Rajput, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri Sushil Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed to quash set-aside/quash the impugned charge sheet dated 18.08.2022 submitted by Investigation officer as well as for quashing of entire proceeding in Case No. 97 of 2023 (Old Case No. 409 of 2022), F.I.R./ Case Crime No. 48 of 2020, Under Section- 384 I.P.C., Police Station- Bangermau, DistrictUnnao, State Versus Navraj Singh and others; pending in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IIIrd, District- Unnao.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially the First Information Report was lodged under Sections 115/279, 337, 376D, 386, 388 and 506 of IPC and thereafter, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet under Sections 384 only and the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. He further submits that due to certain misunderstanding, the instant FIR was lodged against the applicants and thereafter the parties sat together and has amicably settled their dispute which has been reduced in writing on 29.03.2023. He added that thereafter the applicants filed the instant application for direction to the trial Court to verify the compromise deed and in compliance of the order dated 24.04.2023, the verification was done and report has been submitted to this Court vide order dated 03.05.2023. He submits that further criminal proceeding in the instant matter would amount to harassment and thus the instant criminal proceeding arising out of Case Crime No.48 of 2020 may be quashed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits

¶10

that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the opposite party no. 2 has no grievance, hence, criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submissions aforesaid.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 29.03.2023 and said compromise has been verified on 03.05.2023 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal case relating to Case Crime No. 48 of 2020.

¶13

In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 29.03.2023 and no grievance remains to be agitated and as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in 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; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 .

¶14

Accordingly, criminal proceedings with regard to Case No. 97 of 2023 (Old Case No. 409 of 2022), F.I.R./ Case Crime No. 48 of 2020, Under Section- 384 I.P.C., Police Station- Bangermau, District- Unnao are hereby quashed.

¶15

The compromise shall be the part of this order.

¶16

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

Consigned to record.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 Anurag

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satish Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secty. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secty. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. 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

Gur Dayal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hari Krishna Verma @ Badkan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Uma Prakash and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Homes, Lko. and Another

Bhullur Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Kailash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another