Allowed

Saurabh Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2024A482/8699/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, quashed the entire criminal proceeding including the charge sheet. The court held that since a compromise was executed and verified between the parties, and the matter was of a personal nature, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceeding including Charge Sheet No. 01/2021 arising out of Crime No.-793/2020 under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act is quashed.

Saurabh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79920

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8699 of 2024 Applicant :- Saurabh Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Shubh Sri Kanha,Prince Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including the Charge Sheet No.01/2021 dated 17.01.2021 arising out of Crime No.-793/2020 U/S-354/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 26.06.2024, 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.

¶9

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 22.08.2024.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want

¶13

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 entire proceeding including the Charge Sheet No.01/2021 dated 17.01.2021 arising out of Crime No.-793/2020 U/S-354/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow is hereby quashed .

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 V. Sinha

¶17

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

Saurabh Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Deshraj Singh Vs Dr. Vijay Bahadur Dwivedi Director Horticulture and Food Processing Lko.

Suarbhi Singh Vs Dr. M.K. Shanmuga Sundram, Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and Others

Bedram Sharma and Another Vs Ravindra Kumar, Inspector / I.O., C.B.I. / AC-1, New Delhi and Others

Suresh Prasad Gupta vs Sandeep Kumar, the Chief Engineer U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural), Lko.

Malguram Nishad @ Malgu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Manish Kumar Yadav vs Sanjay Singhal, Addl. Director General of Police (Establishment /Karmik) Lko.