Allowed

Uday Singh @ Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024/861/2024

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 criminal proceedings. Relying on precedents regarding compromise in criminal cases, the court held that no purpose would be served by continuing the trial after verifying the valid settlement, and thus quashed the entire proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in issue (chargesheet and related orders) are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

Uday Singh @ Uday Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45878

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 861 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Uday Singh @ Uday Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the chargesheet no. 01 of 2022, dated 08.05.2022 in FIR/Case Crime No. 0496 of 2021 dated 06.12.2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 & 336 of IPC, Police Station Shushant Golf City (Commissionerate Lucknow), District Lucknow and the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 112429 of 2023 (State Vs. Amar Dube & Others), on the basis of compromised letter dated 11.01.2024, as related to the petitioner.

¶9

It appears that after considering the averments made in the application, this Court vide order dated 01.02.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶10

It appears from the order dated 12.02.2024, Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed today, that the court concerned 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.

¶11

For the relief(s) sought, on the basis of compromise, the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, 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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of trial Court dated 12.02.2024 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, entire proceedings in issue are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

¶15

Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in above terms.

¶16

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concerned Court forthwith.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.7.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶18

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

Uday Singh @ Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Singh @ Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. 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

Aaftab Ahmad @ Babloo and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mridula Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Amit Kumar Azad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajesh @ Subedar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Praduman Kumar Mishra @ Babbu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amrendra ( as Per Fir Amrendra Rawat Alias Gupta ) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another