Quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where applicant and complainant entered into a verified compromise in a cheating/forgery case. Following Apex Court precedents, the High Court held no useful purpose would be served in continuing proceedings and quashed the entire criminal proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69412
Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7967 of 2024
Applicant :- Prashant Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Atul Chandel,Kartikeya Yadav,Prateek Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harsh Vardhan Kediya,Nadeem Murtaza,Wali Nawaz Khan
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nadeem Murtza learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 125577/2023 (State v. Prashant Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 500 of 2023, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow), pending in the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Lucknow.
In pursuance of the order dated 09.09.2024, the applicant as well as the opposite party No.2 appeared before the Senior Registrar for verification of contents of compromise executed between the applicant and opposite party No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has duly been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court vide report dated
18.09.2024.
It is evident from the record that the contents of the compromise were verified by the Senior Registrar on 18.09.2024. It is also evident that the compromise is available on record as annexure No. 6, which reveals that the opposite party No.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant.
Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court .
Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab,(2014) 6 SCC 466 . Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.
In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
For the discussions made above, the application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 125577/2023 (State v. Prashant Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 500 of 2023, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand,
District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow), pending in the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Lucknow, is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 15.10.2024 dk/
Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a verified compromise between the parties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs State of PunjabRelied on
2012 AIR SCW 5333 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of HaryanaRelied on
(2003) 3 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh Vs State of PunjabRelied on
(2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Prashant Singh
Brij Raj Singh
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
