Allowed

Sharda Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2024A482/8059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge-sheet and summoning order. The court held that a mutual compromise verified by the trial court rendered further proceedings unnecessary, citing Supreme Court precedents on inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet dated 28.07.2022 and summoning order dated 21.12.2022 quashed.

Sharda Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76721

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8059 of 2024 Applicant :- Sharda Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 28.07.2022 filed in Case Crime No.96 of 2021, under Sections 147, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police StationMunshiganj District Amethi as well as summoning order dated 21.12.2022 passed by ACJM-III, Room No.19, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.10279 of 2023; State Vs. Santosh Kumar Pandey and Ors.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 12.07.2024, a direction was given to the court concerned to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned court concerned had verified the contents of compromise.

¶10

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 court concerned vide report/order dated 23.07.2024.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court concerned.

¶12

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.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter is purely of personal nature, which 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.

¶14

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and charge-sheet dated 28.07.2022 filed in Case Crime No.96 of 2021, under Sections 147, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police StationMunshiganj District Amethi as well as summoning order dated 21.12.2022 passed by ACJM-III, Room No.19, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.10279 of 2023; State Vs. Santosh Kumar Pandey and Ors are hereby quashed .

¶15

Office is directed to communicate this order to trial court forthwith.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 V. Sinha

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sharda Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharda Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Smt. Naseema Khatoon and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and Another

Ramdeen Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Ragini Tiwari and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Pankaj Prakash vs Chairman Cum Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Deputy G.M.

Intezar Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ashok Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another