Allowed

Lalta Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024A482/707/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The court verified a compromise deed executed between the applicant and the opposite party. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that non-compoundable offences could be compounded upon verification of a genuine settlement, and quashed the case on 15.2.2024.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.456 of 2017 arising from Case Crime No.165 of 2012 are hereby quashed.

Lalta Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13671

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 707 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Priya Srivastava,Laxmi Saran Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ambuj Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Ambuj Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶8

This Court has passed the order dated 29.01.2024 which reads as under:

¶9

"1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishwanath Nishad, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Ambuj Kumar, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2 and filed Vakalatnama. The same is taken on record.

¶10

2. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Session Trial No.456 of 2017 (State vs. Lalta Prasad) arising out of Case Crime No.165 of 2012, under Sections 323,504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of S.C./ S.T. Act, Police Station-Mall, DistrictLucknow on the basis of written compromise dated 30.11.2023 executed between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2, which is pending before the court of learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in the interest of justice.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and opposite party No.2 have amicably settled their dispute through compromise on 30.11.2023. The original as well as the photocopy of the compromise taken place between the parties has been annexed with this petition as Annexure No.1.

¶12

4. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can very well be ascertained by the Court below, as such, compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the court below.

¶13

5. In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the court below i.e. learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow on 02.02.2024 along with original compromise deed dated 30.11.2023 for verification of the aforesaid compromise. After verification of the aforesaid compromise, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court below and send it to this Court before the next date of listing, which shall be made part of the record.

¶14

6. List this case on 15.02.2024 along with report of the court below.

¶15

7. Till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be compelled to face the criminal proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid criminal case.

¶16

8. Office is directed to return the original compromise deed dated 30.11.2023 to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith after keeping its photocopy on record.

¶17

9. When the case is next listed, name of Sri Ambuj Kumar, Advocate shall be

¶18

printed in the cause list as counsel for the opposite parties."

¶19

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise deed was filed before the court below and the court concerned vide report dated 07.02.2024 has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed and submitted his 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. The report of the concerned court below dated 07.02.2024 is on record.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Not only the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of Hon'ble 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; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case crime are hereby quashed .

¶23

The petition is, accordingly, allowed .

¶24

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶25

Order Date :- 15.2.2024 kkv/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalta Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalta Prasad 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

Ranjit Alias Mahesh and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Triveni Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Ratan Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another

Phurkan and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and Anr.

Gurupreet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ravindra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another