Allowed

Rajesh Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024A482/2025/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a 498-A case after parties reached a compromise verified as genuine by the trial court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing compounding of non-compoundable offences on compromise, the court quashed the proceedings, summoning order and charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Case no. 3/2016, Crime no. 9/2015, the summoning order dated 1.1.2016 and charge sheet no. 78/2015 were quashed on the basis of compromise.

Rajesh Yadav and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19548

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2025 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed Vakalatnama. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

¶7

By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed the following main relief:-

¶8

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding in Case no. 3/2016 Crime no. 9/2015 U/s 498-A/ 323/504/506 IPC Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow, as well as impugned Summoning order dated 1.1.2016 and charge sheet no. 78/2015 dated 6.1.2015 as contained in Annexure no. 1 and 2 to this petition."

¶9

In this case, the petitioners have initially filed Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Application U/S 482 No.6481 of 2023 wherein this Court vide order dated 11.07.2023 directed the parties to appear before the trial court concerned and the trial court was directed to verify the contents and parties of the compromise deed.

¶10

In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise deed was filed before the learned Court below i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.), FTC, Crime Against Women, Lucknow, who vide order/ report dated 26.07.2023 has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed and submitted report to the extent that the parties and contents of the compromise deed are genuine and they have entered into the compromise by free-will.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case.

¶12

The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed that even if the offence(s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶13

Not only the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed .

¶15

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 4.3.2024 RBS/-

¶17

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

Rajesh Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. 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

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home at Lko.

Brijesh Kumar Verma Alias Tillu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Dr. R.K. Shrivastava @ Ratnesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Affairs Govt. Lko. and Another

Gunjan Verma vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Rajesh Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Pankaj Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another