Sarvesh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10735 of 2023 Applicant :- Sarvesh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suman Kanoujia,Raj Bahadur Singh Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Rejoinder affidavit alongwith Vakalatnama of Sri Nishant, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No.2 is taken on record. Heard. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings of the case No. 67889/2023, crime no. 256/2022, (State Vs. Ravi Shankar and others) under sections 323, 506 I.P.C. P.S.-Banthra, Distt. Lucknow, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, as well as impugned Charge Sheet no. 01/2022 dated 25.09.2022 contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition in the interest of justice." Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that regarding verification of compromise the court concerned, in compliance of order dated 26.09.2023 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9327 of 2023, on 09.10.2023 has verified the compromise 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 applicants 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

09.10.2023 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 same are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise. Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 Vinay/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench