Allowed

Roli Shukla and 2 Other v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secrt. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2024A482/979/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the charge sheet and summoning order in a criminal case under Sections 323, 406, and 420 IPC, noting a verified compromise had been entered into between the parties, rendering further proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet and summoning order in Crime No. 115 of 2023 were quashed.

Roli Shukla and 2 Other vs State of U.P… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45634

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 979 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Roli Shukla And 2 Other Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secrt. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Rajput,Shanker Lal Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishwas Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the charge sheet filed before learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow as well as impugned summoning order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow in Crime No. 115 of 2023, under Sections 323,406, 420 IPC at Police Station Para, District Lucknow in Case of "State vs. Roli Shukla and others" on the basis of compromise as well as to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated before learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow in Crime No. 115 of 2023, under Sections 323, 406, 420 IPC at Police Station Para, Lucknow.

¶8

It appears that after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 05.02.2024 passed in this application referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶9

It appears from the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.20, Lucknow, which is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the supplementary affidavit filed in the instant application, that the court concerned 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.

¶10

For the relief(s) sought, on the basis of compromise, the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, 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

¶11

Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. 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 .

¶12

Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party No. 2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

¶13

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of trial Court dated 12.02.2024 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, charge sheet filed before learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow as well as impugned summoning order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow in Crime No. 115 of 2023, under Sections 323,406, 420 IPC at Police Station Para, District Lucknow in Case of "State vs. Roli Shukla and others" on the basis of compromise as well as to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated before learned Judicial MagistrateII, Lucknow in Crime No. 115 of 2023, under Sections 323, 406, 420 IPC at Police Station Para, Lucknow, is hereby quashed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶14

Accordingly, the present application is allowed in above terms.

¶15

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concerned Court forthwith.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶17

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

Roli Shukla and 2 Other v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secrt. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roli Shukla and 2 Other v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secrt. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Bramha Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Smt. Guddi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Mohammad Sabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Sub Divisional Magistrate Judicial Dist. Sultanpur and 7 Others

Jag Prasad Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer Gonda and 37 Others

P.B.R. Inter College Gausganj Distt. Hardoi Thru. Manager Achin Singh Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Ram Behari Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Hardoi Camp at Unnao and 5 Others