Single judge allowed application under Sec 482 CrPC to quash charge sheet and summoning order in BNS case, holding no purpose served in keeping proceedings pending given parties' settlement and trial court observations.
Quashed of charge sheet dated 22.07.2024 and impugned summoning order dated 02.09.2024.
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:85174
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 126 of 2024
Applicant :- Rahul And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Tewari,Pawan Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant/opposite party No.2 and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing/setting aside the charge sheet dated 22.07.2024, relating to Case Crime No.0321/2024, under Sections 333, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 117(2) of BNS, 2023, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao as well as for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 02.09.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in Case No.20839 of 2024.
It is stated that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 528 BNSS No.38/2024 and the documents on record as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 04.10.2024 referred the matter to the trial court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and a perusal of the order dated 14.11.2024 of the trial court (Annexure No.5) would show that parties have settled their dispute as such the prayer sought in the present application be acceded in the light of Settlement Agreement/compromise.
With regard to acceding the prayer sought in the present application on the basis of compromise/settlement, the learned counsel for the applicant 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 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 .
Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite parties does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the order dated 14.11.2024 of trial court 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, the same are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax immediately for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 18.12.2024 ML/-
Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground of settlement between the parties.
Whether compromise/settlement agreements justify quashing of charge sheet and summoning order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶10
Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶10
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303] · Who else cites this
Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106 · Who else cites this
Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of TamilnaduRelied on¶10
Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶10
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita RaghuvanshiRelied on¶10
Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58 · Who else cites this
Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶10
Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rahul And 2 Others
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Saurabh Lavania
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
