Allowed

Rishikesh Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023/6845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that criminal proceedings under Section 406, 467, 468, 419, 420, 471 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the parties reached a compromise verified by the lower court, serving no useful purpose to continue.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings, miscellaneous case, order dated 23.09.2022 and charge-sheet in view of order dated 29.10.2022 regarding FIR No.273 of 2019 are quashed.

Rishikesh Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47175

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6845 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rishikesh Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Pankaj Dheer Rana, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.1154 of 2020 in connection with FIR No.273 of 2019 U/s 406, 467, 468, 419, 420, 471 IPC, P.S.- Akbarpur, DistrictAmbedkar Nagar along with order dated 23.09.2022 and charge-sheet in view of order dated 29.10.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 21.10.2022 a direction was given to the court below to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned court below had verified the contents of compromise.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has duly been verified by the court below vide report dated 29.10.2022.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has

¶12

been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court below.

¶13

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State 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 . 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.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶15

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.1154 of 2020 in connection with FIR No.273 of 2019 U/s 406, 467, 468, 419, 420, 471 IPC, P.S.- Akbarpur, DistrictAmbedkar Nagar along with order dated 23.09.2022 and charge-sheet in view of order dated 29.10.2022 are hereby quashed.

¶16

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.7.2023 Arpan

¶18

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

Rishikesh Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishikesh Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Smt. Neha Srivastava Proprietor N v System Gorakhpur Vs the State of U.P. and Anr.

Suleman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mata Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Kalaam Mohammad Nafees and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Ankit @ Ankit Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ashutosh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, C Block, Lok Bhawan Lko. and Another