Allowed

Madan Gopal Singhal (M.G Singhal) and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024/9815/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order and entire criminal proceedings under Section 506 IPC. The quashing was based on a verified compromise between the applicant and the opposite party, finding no useful purpose in continuing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 19.10.2011 and entire proceedings of Case No.3090 of 2010 under Section 506 IPC were quashed.

Madan Gopal Singhal (M.G Singhal) and 2 Others Vs State… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73123

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9815 of 2024 Applicant :- Madan Gopal Singhal (M.G Singhal) And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with for the reason that the compromise has been entered between the applicant and opposite party no. 2 and the same has been verified by the court below, which is on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 19.10.2011 and entire proceedings of Case No.3090 of 2010, (Satyendra Mishra vs. Amit Singhal and others) under Section 506 IPC, arising out of Crime No.314 of 2008, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Lucknow on the basis of compromise between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in pursuance of the earlier order dated 24.07.2024 passed in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4081 of 2012, the matter was sent before the court below for verification of the compromise deed dated 29.05.2024.

¶9

It is evident from the record that the factum of the compromise has been verified by the court below vide his order/report dated 05.10.2024 the compromise deed is appended as Annexure 4 to the application, which goes to show that opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant.

¶10

Learned AGA fairly concedes that compromise has been affected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court below.

¶11

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of decisions, viz., 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 SCC 466, has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice. 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

The application is allowed.

¶15

The summoning order dated 19.10.2011 and entire proceedings of Case No.3090 of 2010, (Satyendra Mishra vs. Amit Singhal and others) under Section 506 IPC, arising out of Crime No.314 of 2008, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶16

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned, forthwith.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 Pks

¶18

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madan Gopal Singhal (M.G Singhal) and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Gopal Singhal (M.G Singhal) and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Brajendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Khalik Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Subhash Chandra Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Shasan Lko. and Another

Devendra @ Khaleefa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jyoti Gupta Vs in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Sultanpur and 3 Others