Allowed

Smt. Neeti Raijada @ Renu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023A482/41163/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought to quash a summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on a valid compromise between the parties regarding offences under Sections 452, 323, 427, and 504 IPC. The court held that a no useful purpose would be served by prolonging proceedings given the settlement and quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned summoning order dated 06.10.2009 in Complaint Case No.1894 of 2009 was quashed.

Smt. Neeti Raijada @ Renu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:213256

¶2

Court No. - 89

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41163 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Neeti Raijada @ Renu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vishnu Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 06.10.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.1894 of 2009 (New No.488 of 2012), under Sections-452, 323, 427, 504 I.P.C., passed by CJM, Jalaun.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Application U/s 482 No.34073 of 2023 with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 15.09.2023 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 13.10.2023 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶11

Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of

¶13

Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶15

Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 06.10.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.1894 of 2009 (New No.488 of 2012), under Sections-452, 323, 427, 504 I.P.C., passed by CJM, Jalaun is hereby quashed.

¶16

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Nitin Verma

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Neeti Raijada @ Renu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neeti Raijada @ Renu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Ashok Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramchet and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aurangjeb Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajnish Pal @ Tilka Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pragya Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanju @ Sanjay Soni and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another