Allowed

Satyam Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024A482/3558/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A husband facing charges under Sections 376D, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and the SC/ST Act sought quashing of proceedings after reconciling with the victim. The Court verified the compromise through its Senior Registrar, confirmed the parties had voluntarily agreed, and quashed the trial, charge-sheet and summoning order in terms of the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Session Trial No. 14140/2022, FIR No.400/2022, Charge-sheet No. 02 dated 15.10.2022 and summoning order dated 15.10.2022 in terms of the verified compromise.

Satyam Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56243

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3558 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satyam Shukla

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Samad

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jalaj Kumar Gupta,Mehdi Khan

¶8

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶10

Instant application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶11

"to quash the criminal proceeding of Session Trial по. 14140/2022, (FIR No.400/2022) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Satyam Shukla, pending before the learned Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow, as well as Charge-sheet No. 02 Dated 15.10.2022 U/s 376D, 504, 506 & 34 IPC and U/s 3(2) (V-a) SC / ST Act, Police Station- Madiaon, District-Lucknow (Annexure no.1) and summoning order dated 15.10.2022 (Annexure no.2) in The interest of justice."

¶12

Upon due consideration of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant which includes the facts indicated in the instant application, the supplementary affidavit and short counter affidavit FIR, charge-sheet, deed of compromise as also the marriage certificate dated 30.11.2023, this Court concluded that the victim/informant is the wife of the applicant and for some reasons the FIR was lodged against several persons but charge-sheet thereafter was filed only against the applicant and in these circumstances of the case, this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024 referred the matter to the Senior Registrar of this Court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶13

In compliance of order of this Court dated 02.08.2024, the Senior Registrar of this Court has submitted his report dated 08.08.2024 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.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P.,

¶15

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 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 .

¶16

Learned counsel for the opposite party 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.

¶17

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 and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of victim/informant and the applicant would be ruined and further, that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶20

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

Satyam Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Geeta Pal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Shivam Gupta @ Shivam Yagya Saini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Yogendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Abdul Samad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Juvenile Delinquents X (1) Thru. His Grandmother (Nani) in Case Crime No. 191/2023 and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gurjeet Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another