Rajan Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11388 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajan Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar,Vivek Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for the following main relief:- "(i) Set-aside the entire proceeding of S.C./S.T. Case No. 275/2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 0030/2018, U/s 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Sammanpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 31.07.2023 held between the opposite party no. 2 and petitioner and compromise verification report of learned Special Judge, S.C./ S.T. Act, Ambedkar Nagar dated 20.10.2023 (contained at Annexure No. 4 & 6 to the petition respectively)." On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide its order dated 20.09.2023 has referred the matter to the court below for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and after the verification of the compromise, an appropriate order with respect to the verification shall be passed by the court below and send a report to this Court. In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 20.09.2023, the order dated 20.10.2023 regarding verification of compromise has been passed by the Court concerned 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. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 perusing the order of trial Court dated

20.10.2023 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the entire proceedings of S.C./S.T. Case No. 275/2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 0030/2018, under Sections-406, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)

(Da), 3(1)(Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Sammanpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise. Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 21.11.2023 Arun/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench