Allowed

Shailendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2024/4404/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed two writ petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court held that since the disputes were amicably settled via a dated 23.3.2023 agreement and involved cognizable offenses related to matrimonial/property disputes post-settlement, the proceedings could be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The pending criminal proceedings arising out of the two cases were quashed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:170

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4404 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Shailendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar,Saurabh Bhatnagar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

And

¶7

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2839 of 2022

¶8

Applicant :- Archana Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ubhai Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar

¶9

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶10

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar assisted by Sri Saurabh Bhatnagar, learned counsel for petitioners, learned AGA for State and learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 4 and 5.

¶11

Learned counsel for the parties have stated that both the aforesaid petitions may be decided finally on the basis of settlement agreement entered into on 23.3.2023, between Archna Singh D/o late Ram Prakash Singh, R/o Panchghara, Bhag-1, Block No. 24, P.S. Fatehpur, District Barabanki (First Party) and Shailendra Singh S/o Late Mahesh Singh R/o H. No. 590 H-1/121, Havivatmau, Mavaiya, Near Durga Mandir, P.G.I., Lucknow. In both the aforesaid cases the charge-sheet has been filed against the parties.

¶12

Charge-sheet has been filed in the first case under sections 420, 498A, 323, 506, 427 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the second case charge-sheet has been filed under section 406, 506 IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the details of all the aforesaid cases have been indicated in the settlement agreement. On the basis of aforesaid settlement agreement the parties have settled their dispute amicably on the terms and conditions, so indicated in the settlement agreement and shall not prosecute each other further.

¶14

Both the learned counsel for the parties have stated that on the basis of settlement agreement the pending proceedings may be quashed and parties have given undertaking that they shall

¶15

follow all the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement.

¶16

Be that as it may, if the parties have settled their dispute amicably through settlement agreement dated 23.3.2023 (supra) and perusal of the sections wherein the F.I.R. has been lodged and charge-sheet has been filed reveals that the criminal proceedings arising out of those criminal cases may be quashed in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343.

¶17

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 (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 , both the applications are allowed .

¶18

However, it is needless to say that if any of the parties does not follow the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the aggrieved party may take appropriate legal recourse before the appropriate court of law.

¶19

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 2.1.2024 Om

¶21

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

Shailendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

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

Gayatri and Ors. Vs Dr.Vijendra Singh V.C. Narendra Dev Uni.of Agri.and Tech. Fzd.

Atul Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri B.L. Meena as Director Tribal Development Directorate

Rajpati Devi Vs Shyam Narayan Agnihotri Consolidation Officer Purana Gonda

Archana Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Anr.

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