Allowed

Rajesh Alias Rajesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Home, Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024/1314/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC following a verified compromise between parties. The court held that convictions were unlikely, and continuance of proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings arising out of FIR No. 476 of 2010 and criminal case no. 842 of 2011 are quashed.

Rajesh Alias Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57316

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1314 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Alias Rajesh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Home, Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Sharma,Vaibhav Sharma

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aakash Rai

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants in Court today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

By means of the present application, the applicants are assailing the legality and validity of the impugned charge sheet dated 17.12.2010 as well as impugned cognizance and summoning order order dated 25.02.2011 and all subsequent proceeding of Criminal Case No. 842 of 2011 arising out of case crime no. 476 of 2010, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Malihabad, District Lucknow pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow.

¶10

It appears that after considering the averments made in the instant application and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶11

It appears from the order dated 22.02.2024, (Annexure No. SA2 to the supplementary affidavit filed today) that the trial Court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs.

¶13

State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. , quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶14

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶16

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

Rajesh Alias Rajesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Home, Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Alias Rajesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Home, Secy. Deptt. of Home, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashish Agrahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Smt. Manjul Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Rohit Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Harjeet Singh Ruhil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rajan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another