Allowed

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

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2024/7319/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR under Sections 498A and 323 IPC. Relying on a verified compromise deed and citing Supreme Court precedents, the single-judge bench held that no purpose would be served in continuing the trial, thereby quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR under Sections 498A and 323 IPC, charge-sheet, and cognizance order dated 15.07.2024 were quashed.

Awadhesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59885

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7319 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vilas Janardan Moghe

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief(s):-

¶9

"(i) Quash the FIR No.-0192/2019 under Sections 498 A & 323 LP.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act., PS-Khandasa, District-Faizabad/Ayodhya along with the Charge-sheet and the BW varant/summan order dated 15.07.2024 on the basis of the compromise deed dated-05.08.2024.

¶10

(ii) Quash the entire consequential proceedings pursuant to the FIR No.- 0192/2019 under Sections 498 A & 323 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act., PS- Khandasa, District-faizabad/ayodhya along with the Charge-sheet and the cognizance BW varant/summan order dated 15.07.2024 against the Petitioner under the facts and circumstance of the instant case."

¶11

Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 referred the matter to the Senior Registrar of this Court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶12

In compliance of order of this Court dated 21.08.2024, the Senior Registrar of this Court has submitted his report dated 28.08.2024 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.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant 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., 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,

¶14

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 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, 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.

¶17

Accordingly, the present application is allowed .

¶18

Order Date :- 31.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶19

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uma Shankar @ Uma Shankar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sechu Pal (Actual Name Santosh Pal) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Arvind Kumar Tiwari Alias Anil Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shubham Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Sri Kishan Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit Agarwal and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another