Allowed

Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2024/9444/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash charge sheet, summoning order and subsequent proceedings in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case. Parties had settled by compromise verified by the court below; relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet dated 24.06.2017, summoning order dated 27.09.2017, order dated 20.07.2023 and entire proceedings in Case No. 427 of 2017 quashed.

Raj Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71507

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9444 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mujtaba Kamal Sherwani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Imran Ullah Khan, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party No.3 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 24.06.2017 as well as summoning order dated 27.09.2017 and order dated 20.07.2023 passed in Case No. 427 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow and its entire proceedings.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 11.12.2023 passed in Application U/s 482 No.12016 of 2023, a direction was given to the court concerned to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned court concerned had verified the contents of compromise.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has duly been verified by the court concerned vide report/order dated 08.01.2024.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court concerned.

¶12

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6

¶13

SCC 466. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶15

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and charge sheet dated 24.06.2017 as well as summoning order dated 27.09.2017 and order dated 20.07.2023 passed in Case No. 427 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow and its entire proceedings are hereby quashed .

¶16

Office is directed to communicate this order to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, forthwith.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶18

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

Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

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 Kumar @ Ram Kumar Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Ankit Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Arjun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Mannu Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gulam Jilani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Nagendra Nath Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another