Allowed

Vimal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024A482/1128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504, 506, and 406 IPC based on a compromise. The Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings, relying on Supreme Court precedents establishing that quashing is appropriate when disputes are settled amicably.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Criminal Case No.38449 of 2020.

Vimal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11290

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1128 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vimal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prince Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Prince Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ankit Anand, Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.38449 of 2020: State Vs. Vimal Singh arising out of Case Crime No.39 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. Police Station Bakhshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Lucknow on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at the compromise. Compromise entered into between the parties have been placed on record as Annexure-6 to the petition. The parties have confirmed the terms of the compromise. Compromise has been verified between the parties by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vide order dated 17.11.2022 in compliance of the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 No.7294 of 2022.

¶9

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

¶11

In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.38449 of 2020: State Vs. Vimal Singh arising out of Case Crime No.39 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. Police Station Bakhshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶12

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 7.2.2024 Ram.

¶14

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

Vimal Singh 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?

Vimal Singh 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

Sandeep Kumar Mishra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Om Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Rubina Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Nirmala Devi vs Bangarmau Khad Vikray Kendra(a Partnership Firm)Unnao Thru. Partner Shri Saroj Kumar Gupta and Anr.

Raksharam and 2 Other vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another