Allowed

Smt. Divya Shahi v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024/994/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash chargesheet and stay proceedings. Court verified a compromise agreement entered voluntarily by parties. No purpose served in keeping proceedings pending. Application allowed and proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed. The chargesheet is set aside and quashed in terms of the compromise. Proceedings are stayed.

Smt. Divya Shahi Vs the State of U.P and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55053

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 994 of 2014 Applicant :- Smt. Divya Shahi Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Srivastava,Alok Saran,Amit Kumar Kaushal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Abhishek Mishra,Himanshu Suryavanshi

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Instant application has been filed for the following main reliefs:-.

¶7

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the chargesheet no. 269/13 submitted against the petitioner contained in Annexure-1 and the impugned order dated 26.2.2014 passed by the learned Court below contained in Annexure-6.

¶8

It is further prayed that pending decision of the present petition the further proceedings arising out of Crime No.279 of 2013, U/s. 419,420,467,468,471,120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki. pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki may kindly be stayed."

¶9

Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 07.08.2024 referred the matter to the Senior Registrar of this Court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶10

In compliance of order of this Court dated 07.08.2024, the Senior Registrar of this Court has submitted his report dated 07.08.2024 regarding verification of compromise, which is on record, 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.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal 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 report of Senior Registrar of this Court 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, the same are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶17

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

Smt. Divya Shahi v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Divya Shahi v. the State of U.P and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Hasan Haider and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil . Secrt. Lko. and Another

Bablu Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar Kanaujia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sanjay Capoor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Asad Ali @ Munna and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vishal Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others