Allowed

Nihal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2024/7721/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The court considered a verified compromise deed and cited multiple precedents determining that since the offence arose from a private dispute and chances of conviction were bleak, proceeding would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 253 of 2021 arising out of F.I.R. No. 0144 of 2020 is quashed.

Nihal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59932

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7721 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Nihal Singh

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Ms. Saroj Kumari, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "BNSS") has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶10

"That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the chargesheet dated 26.10.2020 in respect of F.I.R. No. 0144 of 2020, under section 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C., police station Cantt, District Lucknow as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 12.04.2021 on the basis of verified compromise deed as the opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the above mentioned case against the petitioner pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, II, district Lucknow. The petitioner further crave indulgence of the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings of criminal case no. 253 of 2021 arising out of F.I.R. No. 0144 of 2020, under section 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C., police station Cantt, District Lucknow on the basis of compromise as the opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the above mentioned case against the petitioner pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, II, district Lucknow. Furthermore the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to stay the proceedings of the criminal case no. 253 of 2021 arising out of F.I.R. No. 0144 of 2020, under section 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C., police station Cantt, District Lucknow, on the basis of compromise as the complainant does not want to press the above mentioned case against the petitioner pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, II, district Lucknow until final disposal of the present petition, in the interest of justice."

¶11

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5431 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 14.06.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and this order dated 14.06.2024 was passed on coming to the view that with ulterior motive the FIR was lodged in relation to some private dispute.

¶12

It appears from the order dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure No.6) 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.

¶13

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 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 Criminal Case No. 253 of 2021 (Supra) , indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 2.9.2024 Jyoti/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nihal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nihal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Ram Bhawan Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shivam Singh @ Sanju Kinnar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Gaurav Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Vaibhav Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. in the Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Waseem Ahmad @ Waseem Akram Vs Stata of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Srvesh and Others vs Shri Masoom Ali Sarwar, M.D., U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lko.