Satyam Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

"to quash the criminal proceeding of Session Trial по. 14140/2022, (FIR No.400/2022) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Satyam Shukla, pending before the learned Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow, as well as Charge-sheet No. 02 Dated 15.10.2022 U/s 376D, 504, 506 & 34 IPC and U/s 3(2) (V-a) SC / ST Act, Police Station- Madiaon, District-Lucknow (Annexure no.1) and summoning order dated 15.10.2022 (Annexure no.2) in The interest of justice."

¶12

Upon due consideration of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant which includes the facts indicated in the instant application, the supplementary affidavit and short counter affidavit FIR, charge-sheet, deed of compromise as also the marriage certificate dated 30.11.2023, this Court concluded that the victim/informant is the wife of the applicant and for some reasons the FIR was lodged against several persons but charge-sheet thereafter was filed only against the applicant and in these circumstances of the case, this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024 referred the matter to the Senior Registrar of this Court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶13

In compliance of order of this Court dated 02.08.2024, the Senior Registrar of this Court has submitted his report dated 08.08.2024 regarding verification of compromise, which is on record, 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.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the 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.,

¶15

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 .

¶16

Learned counsel for the opposite party 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.

¶17

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the report of Senior Registrar of this Court as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above and the nature of dispute/crime and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of victim/informant and the applicant would be ruined and further, that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the same are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

¶18

Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶20

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

Satyam Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rais Alam and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ram Suresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sheikh Mohammad Shariq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Aftab Alias Md. Aftab and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Ranjeet @ Ghaseete Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Chandan Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another