Allowed

Indra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2024/4354/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings of a sessions court trial for mischief (Section 435 IPC) after the parties settled their dispute amicably by compromise deed. Opposite party No.2 raised no objection. Following Supreme Court precedent on quashing via compromise, proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of S.T. No.260 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.C-17 of 2004, Section 435 I.P.C., P.S. Tarabganj, District Gonda, quashed.

Indra Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42723

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4354 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Indra Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Paritosh Shukla

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Paritosh Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and Sri Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

¶9

Short counter affidavit filed the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

¶10

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of S.T. No.260 of 2016: State Vs. Indra Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.C-17 of 2004, under Section 435 I.P.C. Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at a compromise. Compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. The learned counsel for the parties have confirmed the terms of compromise.

¶12

4. Opposite party No.2 does not have any objection, if the impugned proceedings are quashed against the applicants.

¶13

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

6. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab : (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another : (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

¶15

7. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and the entire proceedings of S.T. No.260 of 2016: State Vs. Indra Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.C-17 of 2004, under Section 435 I.P.C. Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda are hereby quashed.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 7.6.2024 Anupam S/-

¶18

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

Indra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home 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

Abdul Kabeer Usmani Thru. His Father Noor Usmani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Varun Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Saeed @ Mohammad Saeed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

'S' Revisionist (Minor) Thru. His Uncle Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Chhotey Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another