Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh Maurya @ Kamlesh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And ... on 31 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41499
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1796 of 2024
Appellant :- Kamlesh Maurya @ Kamlesh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Amarjeet Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Sri Seraj Ahamad, learned Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard.
The instant appeal has been filed for the following main relief:-
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Appeal of appellant, set aside the entire proceeding of Session Trial no. 715/2011, Crime no. 176/2011 U/s 354/323/504 IPC AND 3(1) (XI)_of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Mishrikh, District: Sitapur, as well as impugned Summoning order dated 9.8.2011, passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur and Charge sheet no. 38/2011 dated 18.7.2011, as contained in Annexure no. 1 and 2."
It is stated that after considering the averments made in the present application and the documents on record, this Court vide its order dated 23.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2993/2023, has referred the matter to the trial court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and a perusal of the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the trial court (Annexure No.4) would show that parties have settled their dispute as such the prayer sought in the present appeal be acceded in the light of Settlement Agreement/compromise.
With regard to acceding the prayer sought in the present appeal on the basis of compromise/settlement, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court 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 Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the order dated 02.05.2024 of trial court as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, 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 is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax immediately for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024
Jyoti/-
