Allowed

Sunil Gautam and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024A482/7239/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order allows an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on a verified compromise between the parties. Relying on various Supreme Court precedents regarding the quashing of matrimonial cases, the court held that chances of conviction were bleak and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trials.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Case No. 6953/2020 arising out of Crime No.0696/2019 are hereby quashed.

Sunil Gautam and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56373

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7239 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Gautam And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Sri Mayank Tiwari, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶8

The present application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶9

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order thereby allowing the petition and quash the entire proceedings of case bearing Case No. 6953/2020, 6953 arising out of Case Crime No.0696/2019, Under Section- 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act Police StationGangaghat, District Unnao "State Verses Sunil Gautam & others" pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C. (C.A.W), Unnao on the basis of compromise between the parties concern in the light of several law laid down by this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble the Apex Court."

¶10

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5928 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 09.07.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶11

It appears from the order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure No.4) that the trial court has verified the compromise, 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 before the court.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the nature of dispute/crime as also the observations made by 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., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs.

¶13

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 , this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings of Case No. 6953/2020 (Supra) , indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶14

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.8.2024 Jyoti/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Gautam and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Gautam and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandan Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Ankit Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ram Lali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Vijay Kumar Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bhupendra Kumar Pandey @ Bhupendra Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another