Allowed

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023/6384/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Section 482 CrPC application to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that a valid compromise deed executed by the parties extinguished the grievance, rendering further prosecution untenable and amounting to an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 893 of 2020 arising out of Crime No. 946 of 2019 under sections 323/420/504/506/376 IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:43888

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6384 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Sri Ram Saran Awasthi, Advocate has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ram Saran Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶8

By means of the instant application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the chargesheet no. nil dated 28-07-2020 filed in Case Crime No. 946 of 2019, under sections 323/420/504/506/376 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-PGI, District-Lucknow as well as the order of summoning dated 24-08-2020 in Special Case (S.C./S.T. Act) No. 893 of 2020,State Vs Ashok Kumar Tiwari, under sections 323/420/504/506/376 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He further added that due to some misunderstanding the instant FIR was lodged and thereafter the parties sat together and they have settled their dispute and that too has been reduced in writing as a compromise deed dated 27.05.2023. He next submits that due to certain enmity the impugned F.I.R. was lodged. Adding his arguments, he submits that now the parties have put their all disputes at rest by way of executing compromise deed and thus further criminal proceedings against the present applicant would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicants.

¶10

Adding his arguments, he also submits that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.05.2023 has referred the matter for compromise verification in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2021 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have appeared before the court below and the compromise deed dated 27.05.2023 has been verified in presence of all concerned

¶11

parties and the order of verification was passed on 26.06.2023 by the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act),District-Lucknow. He next added that now the matter has been compromised between the parties, and as such the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 893 of 2020(State of U.P. versus Ashok Kumar Tiwari) arising out of Case Crime No. 946 of 2019, under Sections 323/420/504/506/376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-PGI, District - Lucknow may be quashed.

¶12

In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:-

¶13

"9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶14

10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant."

¶15

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment aforesaid.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also supported the version of the applicant and submits that the parties have entered into compromise deed and now there is no dispute in between the parties and thus the criminal proceeding against the applicant may be dropped.

¶17

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 10.10.2022 and said compromise has been verified on 02.01.2023 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned State versus Ram Lakhan, arising out of aforementioned Case Crime No.64 of 2020.

¶19

In view of the above, as the applicant and opposite party no. 2 have entered into compromise on 27.05.2023 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.

¶20

Resultantly, proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 893 of 2020 (State of U.P. versus Ashok Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 946 of 2019, under Sections 323/420/504/506/376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-PGI, District - Lucknow, are hereby quashed .

¶21

The compromise deed shall be part of this order.

¶22

Consequences to be followed.

¶23

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 AKS

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar 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

Yashoda Vs Court of Chief Judicil Magistrate Ambedkar Nagar and 7 Others

Anurag Shukla @ Raja Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Girja Shankar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Smt. Namita Saxena Vs the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and Anr.

Brijesh Narayan Mishra and Another. Vs State of U.P.and Another.

Dharampal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others