Chotu Alias Abhishek and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Others

Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11274 of 2023 Applicant :- Chotu Alias Abhishek And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sachida Nand Tiwari,Chamupati,Naveen Giri,Shivam Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar Pal Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants/petitioners for quashing the summoning order dated 06.11.2020 including the Charge Sheet dated 23.05.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 0086 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Jankipuram, District-Lucknow. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that regarding verification of compromise the court concerned, in compliance of order dated 28.08.2023 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7033 of 2023, on 29.09.2023 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. 3 does not want to proceed with the proceedings, in issue. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the report of trial Court dated

29.09.2023 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. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concerned court forthwith. Order Date :- 23.11.2023/Raj High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench