Allowed

Dharmendra Vaishya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024/35/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising under the IPC and SC/ST Act. The court allowed the appeal and condoned the delay after verifying a compromise agreement entered into by the parties voluntarily.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings under the impugned summoning order are quashed in terms of the compromise reached between the parties.

Dharmendra Vaishya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30912

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 35 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Dharmendra Vaishya And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amar Jit Singh Bisen,Jagdish Pratap Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajeet Kumar Singh,Vishal Kumar Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Taking note of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2023) , the same is allowed.

¶8

Delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. as well as Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the record.

¶10

The present appeal has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of summoning order dated 14.07.2022 passed in S.T. No. 1341 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 14/2022, under Sections- 323, 352, 504, 506 IPC and Sections- 3(1)(n) & 3(1)(k) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gudamba, DistrictLucknow.

¶11

It appears that from the order dated 18.01.2023 passed in this appeal that appellants' counsel submitted that the parties have entered into compromise out side the court and the compromise is likely to be verified by the court below shortly.

¶12

It appears from the order dated 25.01.2023 that the count concerned 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

For the relief(s) sought, on the basis of compromise, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim

¶14

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 .

¶15

Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party No. 2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

¶16

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of trial court dated 25.01.2023 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, entire proceedings in issue are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

¶17

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed in above terms.

¶18

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concerned court forthwith.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.4.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶20

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

Dharmendra Vaishya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Vaishya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./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

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Km. Garima Devi Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Azim Ahamad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Imran @ Patalu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Roli Shukla and 2 Other vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secrt. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Raj Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another