Raviker Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 21764 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Raviker Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 3 July, 2024

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45265
 
Court No. - 13
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5770 of 2024
 
Applicant :- Raviker Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shahid Raza
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
 

1. Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed counter affidavit along with Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2 in Court today which is taken on record.

2. Heard.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned cognizance order dated 22.02.2021 passed by C.J.M. (custom), Lucknow arising out of Case Crime No. 0044/2020 under Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC, Police Station- P.G.I., District- Lucknow and entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 10996 of 2021 pending before C.J.M. (custom), Lucknow.

4. It is stated that this Court vide its order dated 29.09.2023 referred the matter to the trial court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

5. In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 29.09.2023, the order dated 04.10.2023 regarding verification of compromise has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow 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.

6. For the purposes of deciding the present application in the light of compromise, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court passed 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.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the private respondent does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of trial Court dated 04.10.2023 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, which is essentially a matrimonial dispute, 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 in terms of the compromise.

9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

Order Date :- 3.7.2024/Mohit Singh/-