Allowed

Vishal Saxsena and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024/166/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court application under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of criminal proceedings involving sections 498A IPC and 504 IPC. After a prior direction for filing a compromise deed was complied with, the court exercised its inherent powers to quash the pending proceedings, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents regarding settlement of matrimonial and other offences.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Case No. 101885 of 2022, Crime No. 0005 of 2022 u/s 498A, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Manak Nagar, District Lucknow were quashed.

Vishal Saxsena and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2562

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 166 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vishal Saxsena And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gopal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. Nusrat Jahan, learned AGA for the State and Rajiv Prakash Saxena, Advocate who has put n appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶7

This Court vide order dated 7.8.2023 directed the parties to file compromise deed before the court below concerned and the court below was directed to verify the contents and parties of the compromise deed.

¶8

In the present case, the sections involved are 498A, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶9

In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise deed was filed before the court below concerned and the same vide its report dated 17.8.2023 has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed and submitted his report to the extent that the parties and contents of the compromise deed are genuine and they have entered into the compromise by free-will.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case.

¶11

The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343 has observed that even if the offence (s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶12

Not only the above considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab

¶13

(2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 the entire proceedings of Case No. 101885 of 2022, Crime No. 0005 of 2022 u/s 498A, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Manak Nagar, District Lucknow pending before the court of A.C.J.M.-VIth, Court no. 30, Lucknow are hereby quashed .

¶14

The petition is allowed .

¶15

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 Om

¶17

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishal Saxsena and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Saxsena and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satish Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gopal Singh Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Gobind Rai @ Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Asjadullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. Lko. and Another

Satnam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another