Allowed

Aneeta Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2025A482/5548/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Section 482 CrPC petition sought quashing of a charge sheet and proceedings in an extortion-abuse criminal case. After the parties settled their dispute amicably and the compromise was court-verified, the court relied on established Supreme Court precedent on compromise-based quashing and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet no.1 of 2022 dated 28.11.2022 and entire proceedings of Case No.110881 of 2023 (Case Crime No.409 of 2022) quashed.

Aneeta Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38928

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5548 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Aneeta Devi And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Vishank Pathak, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶7

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS the applicants have prayed for quashing of charge sheet no.1 of 2022, dated 28.11.2022, along with entire proceedings of Case No.110881 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.409 of 2022, under Sections 385, 504, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsels for the parties submit that they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at the compromise. A copy of 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. Compromise has been verified between the parties by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vide order dated 23.06.2025 in compliance of the order dated 20.05.2025 passed

¶9

by this Court in Application u/s 482 No.4213 of 2025.

¶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 impugned charge sheet no.1 of 2022, dated 28.11.2022, along with entire proceedings of Case No.110881 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.409 of 2022, under Sections 385, 504, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶13

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶14

Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Ram.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aneeta Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneeta Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. 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

Sandeep Kumar Gupta @ Sandeep Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Triveni Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Kishan Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gopal Vyas vs Union of India Thru. C.B.N.

Pramila and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another