Allowed

Jaideep Singh alias Deepu Singh and others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024/7591/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings. The court verified that a compromise was voluntarily entered into by the parties and, relying on various precedents, held that conviction chances were bleak, making continuance of proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of FIR/Case Crime No.1384 of 2010 under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 IPC are quashed.

Jaideep Singh alias Deepu Singh and others Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65021

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7591 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jaideep Singh Alias Deepu Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Salman,Ana Fatma,Mukhtar Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶7

Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "BNSS") has been preferred by the applicant(s)/petitioner(s) for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.3855 of 2022, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.1384 of 2010, under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.-Makhi, District-Unnao as well as Charge sheet no.0231 of 2010, dated 29.09.2010.

¶8

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.6457 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 23.07.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶9

It appears from the order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure No.2) that the trial court 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.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the nature of dispute/crime as also the observations made by 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, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao

¶11

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 , this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings of FIR/Case Crime No.1384 of 2010 (Supra) , indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶12

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Anand/-

¶14

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

Jaideep Singh alias Deepu Singh and others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaideep Singh alias Deepu Singh and others v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Renu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

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

Satish Chandra Katiyar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohammad Vasi @ Rangile @ Waseem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Tarun Kumar @ Tarun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Danish Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.