Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar Bajpai @ Neetu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 27 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40093
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1741 of 2024
Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Bajpai @ Neetu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Narendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2 in Court today which is taken on record.
Heard.
The present appeal has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 2133 of 2021, arising out Case Crime No. 88 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Krishna Nagar, District-Lucknow pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow.
It is stated that this Court vide its order dated 22.04.2024 referred the matter to the trial court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.
In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 22.04.2024, the order dated 15.05.2024 regarding verification of compromise has been passed by the Court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T Act, 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.
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.
Learned counsel for the respondents 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.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of trial Court dated 15.05.2024 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.
Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
Mohit Singh/-
