Hakeem Singh @ Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11493 of 2023 Applicant :- Hakeem Singh @ Virendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Sri Alok Kumar Singh Advocate has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:- "(i). To quash the Charge sheet No.-9/2008 dated 05.02.2008 of Crime No.- 12/2008 U/s 452/323/504/506 IPC & Sec. 3(1)X SC/ST Act, P.S. Neemgoan, District Kheri contained herewith as Annexure No.-2 to this petition.

(ii). To quash the cognizance order dated 12.03.2008 pending in the Court of 2nd A.S.J./Special Judge SC /ST Act Lakimpur Kheri (State Versus Hakeem Singh @ Virendra Singh) by which the petitioner was summoned for facing trial contained herewith as Annexure No.-3 to this petition. Further proceedings of S.T. No.-81/2010 arising out from Charge sheet No.- 9/2008 dated 05.02.2008 of Crime No.-12/2008 U/s-452/323/504/506 IPC & Sec. 3(1)X SC/ST Act P.S. Neemgoan, District Kheri and cognizance order dated

12.03.2008 pending in the Court of 2nd A.S.J./Special Judge SC/ST Act Lakimpur Kheri (State Versus Hakeem Singh @ Vijendra Singh) may be stayed during the pendency of the aforesaid petition." On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 8340 of 2023, has referred the matter to the court below for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 25.08.2023, the court concerned Lakhimpur Kheri, has verified the compromise on 06.10.2023, as appears from the Annexure No. 5, wherein it has been mentioned 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. With regard to the prayer sought including quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, the 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

¶409Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite parties do not want to proceed with entire proceedings of S.T. No.-81/2010 arising out from Charge sheet No.-9/2008 dated

05.02.2008 of Crime No.-12/2008 U/s-452/323/504/506 IPC & Sec. 3(1)X SC/ST Act P.S. Neemgoan, District Kheri and cognizance order dated 12.03.2008 pending in the Court of 2nd A.S.J./Special Judge SC/ST Act Lakimpur Kheri (State Versus Hakeem Singh @ Vijendra Singh). Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the report dated 06.10.2023 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and the nature of dispute/crime, which is essentially a matrimonial dispute, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, entire proceedings of proceedings of S.T. No.-81/2010 arising out from Charge sheet No.-9/2008 dated 05.02.2008 of Crime No.- 12/2008 U/s-452/323/504/506 IPC & Sec. 3(1)X SC/ST Act P.S. Neemgoan, District Kheri and cognizance order dated 12.03.2008 pending in the Court of 2nd A.S.J./Special Judge SC/ST Act Lakimpur Kheri (State Versus Hakeem Singh @ Vijendra Singh), are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise. Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. 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 :- 24.11.2023 Jyoti/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench