Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024A482/1367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 452, 506, 354 IPC based on a compromise deed. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding private disputes, allowed the application and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Criminal Case No.371 of 2024 and charge-sheet No. 677/23.

Pradeep Kumar Bajpai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:24159

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1367 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Bajpai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,O.P. Tiwari

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Vivek Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, the learned Government Counsel and Sri Gaurav Mishra, holding brief of Sri O.P. Tiwari, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

¶8

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.371 of 2024, under Sections 452, 506, 354 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao arising out of the Case Crime No. 0813 of 2023, Police Station as well as charge-sheet No. 677/23, dated 18.10.2023 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, FTC Crime Against Women, District Unnao.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at a compromise. A copy of compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure-3 to the application. The learned counsel for the parties have confirmed the terms of compromise.

¶10

4. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 does not

¶11

have any objection, if the impugned proceedings are quashed against the applicants.

¶12

5. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is of private nature and it does not affect the public at large and 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.

¶13

6. 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 entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.371 of 2024, under Sections 452, 506, 354 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao arising out of the Case Crime No. 0813 of 2023, Police Station as well as chargesheet No. 677/23, dated 18.10.2023 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, FTC Crime Against Women, District Unnao are quashed.

¶14

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 19.3.2024 Ram.

¶16

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

Pradeep Kumar Bajpai 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?

Pradeep Kumar Bajpai 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

X (Juvenile) Thru. His Brother Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Juvenile S in Case Crime No. 278/2023 Thru. His Father Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Salim Muktar Ahmad Khan @ Peer Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rambahadur Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Shanu @ Shan Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lucknow and Others

Mohammad Ashraf Husain and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another