Allowed

Indra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2024A482/4354/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a dispute settled by an out-of-court compromise between the applicants and the State, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of S.T. No.260 of 2016 in State Vs. Indra Kumar and others are quashed.

Indra Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42723

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4354 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Indra Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Paritosh Shukla

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Paritosh Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and Sri Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

¶9

Short counter affidavit filed the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

¶10

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of S.T. No.260 of 2016: State Vs. Indra Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.C-17 of 2004, under Section 435 I.P.C. Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶11

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. Compromise deed has been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. The learned counsel for the parties have confirmed the terms of compromise.

¶12

4. Opposite party No.2 does not have any objection, if the impugned proceedings are quashed against the applicants.

¶13

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

¶14

6. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature 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.

¶15

7. 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 S.T. No.260 of 2016: State Vs. Indra Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.C-17 of 2004, under Section 435 I.P.C. Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda are hereby quashed.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 7.6.2024 Anupam S/-

¶18

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

Indra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home 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

M/S Antriksh Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad Thru. Auth. Signatory Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vs Amit Saxena

Akbar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manish Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shyamu Alias Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Ram Harish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue,Lko. and 6 Others