Allowed

Dinesh Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thur. Secy Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2024/8826/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 323/324/504 IPC and the SC/ST Act, 1986. The court relied on a verified compromise between parties and cited Supreme Court observations, noting the low probability of conviction and the lack of utility in continuing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 224/2016 arising out of Case No. ST. No. 80 of 2016.

Dinesh Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thur. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:67423

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8826 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thur. Secy Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,Ram Alok Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by Sri Amit Bhardwaj, Advocate alongwith his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in the Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶8

The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief:-

¶9

"(i) Quash the entire proceedings of case bearing S.T. No.80 of 2016 Crime No.224/2016 Under Section 323/324/504 I.P.C.& 3(1)(X) The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act1986 Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow, on the basis of compromise, pending before Leaned District & Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act Lucknow. A copy of Charge Sheet is being annexed herewith as Annexure no. 1 to this Petition."

¶10

It appears further that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4072 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 03.05.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court/trial court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶11

It further appears from the order of the trial court dated 16.07.2024 annexed at Page No. 26 of this application that the trial court has verified the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶12

Based upon the aforesaid facts as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements, learned counsel for the applicants stated that the instant application be allowed and pending proceedings in issue be quashed.

¶13

Based upon the compromise entered into between the parties, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 also stated that the opposite party No. 2 does not want to continue with the proceeding in issue and the same may be quashed.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid and also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the nature of dispute/crime and also the observations made by the

¶15

Hon'ble 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 arising out of Case Crime No.224/2016 , indicated above, are hereby quashed.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 30.9.2024 Arun/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thur. Secy Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thur. Secy Home Deptt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Riyazul Islam and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Jiyaul Islam and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Kashyap @ Amit Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Deptt of Home Lko and 6 Others

Sujeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Iliyas Khan @ Shebu Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Others

Harendra Kumar Bharti @ Harendra Bharti ( as Mentioned in Fir) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another