Allowed

Santram and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2024A482/4054/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet and summons/cognizance order in a criminal case involving Sections 147, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The court quashed the proceedings citing a post-factum compromise verified by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned charge sheet dated 2.8.2018 and the summoning/cognizance order dated 23.1.2023 were quashed.

Santram and Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34257

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4054 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Santram And Others Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Nafees

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mohd. Nafees, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos.3 to 5, which is taken on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 2.8.2018 arising out of Case Crime No.130 of 2018 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 23.1.2023 passed in Criminal Case No.2727 of 2023 (State vs. Dinesh Nishad and others) in terms of the compromise deed dated 4.3.2024 as well as verification report dated 2.4.2024 prepared by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute outside the court by way of compromise dated 4.3.2024. The copy of the compromise is on record. On the basis of the said compromise, earlier the applicants have filed Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2024 before this court in which vide order dated 19.3.2024 the matter was sent to learned trial court for verification of compromise in

¶9

the presence of parties.

¶10

Further it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in compliance of order passed by this Court, parties had appeared before the trial court, who in the presence of the parties has verified the compromise entered between the parties vide its order dated 2.4.2024. The copy of the verification report is on record as Annexure-6 to the application.

¶11

Learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5 concedes the argument made by learned counsel for the applicants. Learned A.G.A. has also no objection if the impugned proceedings are quashed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the parties submits that in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in 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 State of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the proceedings pending before learned trial court are liable to be quashed.

¶13

In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise and from perusal of the record it appears that the compromise has been verified by the trial court and the verification report is on record as well as considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases (supra), it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in

¶14

pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

¶15

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned impugned charge sheet dated 2.8.2018 arising out of Case Crime No.130 of 2018 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 23.1.2023 passed in Criminal Case No.2727 of 2023 (State vs. Dinesh Nishad and others), are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 2.5.2024 Madhu

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santram and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santram and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

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

Mohd. Sufiyan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Taufeeq Quraishi @ Mo Tavfik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jamid Ali @ Maiku Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shivam Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ram Sajeevan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another