Allowed

Indrajeet Alias Nankhe v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2025A482/5412/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a summoning order in a dowry/cruelty trial after the parties settled their dispute by compromise, which was verified before the trial court. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on quashing proceedings upon compromise, the High Court quashed the summoning order and the entire case proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Indrajeet Alias Nankhe Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38037

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5412 of 2025 Applicant :- Indrajeet Alias Nankhe Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Vijai Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vijai Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Vikram Singh Chauhan, the learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Ram Kripal Yadav, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.

¶7

The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought quashing of the summoning order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Addl. District Judge/Spl. Judge PC Act-I, Lucknow in S.T. No.1027 of 2019 arsing out of the Case Crime No.217 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 323, 313 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station- Nigohan, Lucknow including the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsels for the parties submit that they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at the compromise. Compromise entered into between the parties have been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the petition. The parties have confirmed the terms of the compromise and the parties have agreed to part their ways by way of mutual consent. Compromise has been verified between the parties by Addl. District Judge/Spl. Judge PC Act-I, Lucknow vide order dated 17.01.2025 in compliance of the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by this Court in Application u/s

¶9

482 No.11778 of 2024.

¶10

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(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 Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

¶12

In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present petition is allowed and the summoning order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Addl. District Judge/Spl. Judge PC Act-I, Lucknow in S.T. No.1027 of 2019 arsing out of the Case Crime No.217 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 323, 313 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station- Nigohan, Lucknow including the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed .

¶13

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 4.7.2025 -Amit K-

¶15

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

Indrajeet Alias Nankhe v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Indrajeet Alias Nankhe v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Rajesh Singh and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Ors.

Adrash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Laxmi @ Advocate Laxmi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kavit Kumar Singh @ Kavit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Nadir vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Anees @ Anees vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another