Allowed

Sanjay Capoor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024/2490/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings involving Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 506 IPC. The court relied on a verified compromise between parties and cited multiple Supreme Court precedents, noting bleak chances of conviction.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed. The cognizance/summoning order and consequent orders were quashed. All proceedings arising out of the FIR and Case Crime were quashed.

Sanjay Capoor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55069

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2490 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Capoor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakshit Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shishir Chandra

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Sri Shishir Chandra, Advocate, has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of the private opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶8

By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-

¶9

"To quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 06.03.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and all the consequent orders passed therefrom in Criminal Case Number 4127 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 513 of 2013 U/s 420,467,468,406,506 IPC P.S. Hazratganj District: Lucknow, filed at the instance of opposite party no.2, which is pending before CJM, Lucknow.

¶10

ii) To quash the chargesheet dated 31.12.2013 filed in Criminal Case Number 4127 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 513 of 2013 U/s 420,467,468,406,506 IPC P.S. Hazratganj District: - Lucknow, at the instance of opposite party no.2, pending before the CJM, Lucknow."

¶11

It appears that after considering the averments made in the application and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 15.03.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶12

It appears from the order dated 06.04.2024 which is on record as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit that the C.J.M., Lucknow 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.

¶13

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,

¶14

2022 (1) SCJ 536, 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. 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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶17

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

Sanjay Capoor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Capoor v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hasan Haider and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil . Secrt. Lko. and Another

Bablu Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar Kanaujia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Divya Shahi Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Asad Ali @ Munna and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vishal Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others