Sagar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2408

Court No. - 16

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 283 of 2025 Applicant :- Sagar Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nishant Srivastava,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Pravesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶7

The petition seeks quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 16.08.2021 and the subsequent proceedings arising out of Case No.3884 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 323 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.2 is purely matrimonial in nature and have amicably settled their dispute outside the court vide compromise dated 24.4.2024, copy of which is on record as Annexure-5 to the petition.

¶9

Further it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier a petition bearing Application U/S 482 No.10744 of 2024 was filed by the petitioners for quashing of the proceedings which was disposed of vide order dated 27.11.2024, which is extracted below:-

¶10

"1. Heard Shri Nishant Srivastava and Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Avinash Prajapati and Shri Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, who have filed Power on behalf of opposite party No.2 and perused the entire record.

¶11

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 16.08.2021 in Case No.3884 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act at police station Vibhuti

¶12

Khand, District Lucknow.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature. However, parties jointly submit that the applicants and the complainant/ opposite party no.2 have entered into a compromise on 24.04.2024. They have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court during the pendency of the aforesaid case mutually and voluntarily and have decided not to contest the case against each other. Copy of the compromise dated 24.04.2024 is on record as Annexure No.3 to the instant application.

¶14

4. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the learned trial court, as such, compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the concerned parties before the learned trial court.

¶15

5. Accordingly, this application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, notices be issued to all the concerned parties including the injured or victim, if any, requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court concerned and the compromise will be made part of the record.

¶16

6. The court concerned, in that scenario, will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶17

7. The Registry of the Court is directed to return the original compromise deed, if any, annexed with the instant application to the learned counsel for the applicants, after retaining a photocopy of the same on record.

¶18

8. During the process of verification, the impugned summoning order dated 16.08.2021 or any process issued pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants, namely, Sagar Singh, Narendra Singh and and Smt. Pushpa Singh. "

¶19

It is submitted that in compliance of order passed by this Court dated 27.11.2024, the parties had appeared before the learned court below and in the presence of the parties, the compromise has been verified by the learned court below vide order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure-3 to the petition).

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 concedes the argument made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶21

Learned counsel for the parties submits that in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :

¶22

(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus State of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶23

In view of the facts that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise and from perusal of the record it appears that the compromise has been verified by learned court below and the verification report dated 13.12.2024 is on record as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases, referred above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned summoning order dated 16.08.2021 and the subsequent proceedings arising out of Case No.3884 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 323 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶24

Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sagar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankush Singh @ Lalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Surendra Kumar Maurya Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ravindra Pratap Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Deepankar Lahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Shashi Khurana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another