Suneel Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home and Another

Court No. - 28 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11091 of 2023 Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶1Sri Durgesh Kumar Shukla, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Manish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.N. Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Durgesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶3By means of the instant application, the applicant has prayed to quash the chargesheet registered as Case no. 37088 of 2021 arising out of case crime no. 1010 of 2019 under sections 323/504/506/406 IPC Police Station P.G.I., District-Lucknow, State Versus Suneel Kumar Yadav pending before the learned CJM, Lucknow as well as the cognizance order dated 06-07-2021 passed by Learned CJM, Lucknow.

¶4The learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to certain misunderstanding, the instant FIR was lodged against the applicant and thereafter the parties sat together and has amicably settled their dispute which has been reduced in writing on 01.12.2022. He added that thereafter the applicant filed the instant application for direction to the trial Court to verify the compromise deed and in compliance of the order dated 11.10.2023, the verification was done and report has been submitted to this Court vide order dated 16.05.2023. He submits that further criminal proceeding in the instant matter would amount to harassment and thus the instant criminal proceeding arising out of Case Crime No. 1010 of 2019 may be quashed.

¶5Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that parties have amicable settled their dispute and the opposite party no. 2 has no grievance, hence, criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped.

¶6Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the contention aforesaid.

¶7Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 01.12.2022 and said compromise has been verified on 11.10.2023 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal case relating to Case Crime No. 1010 of 2019.

¶8In view of the above, as the applicant and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 01.12.2022 and no grievance remains to be agitated and as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶9Accordingly, criminal proceedings with regard to the chargesheet dated 08.12.2019 registered as Case No. 37088 of 2021 arising out of case crime no. 1010 of 2019 under sections 323/504/506/406 IPC Police Station P.G.I., District-Lucknow, State Versus Suneel Kumar Yadav pending before the learned CJM, Lucknow as well as the cognizance order dated 06-07-2021 passed by Learned CJM, Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶10The compromise shall be part of this order.

¶11The application is allowed accordingly.

¶12Consigned to record. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Mayank High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench