Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 103526 (ALL)

GAJENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

A482/34303/2024 · 2025-09-24

Yogesh Dubey Joint Registrar Judicial

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34303 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Sajiya Parveen, learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Khalid Ansari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the summoning order dated 03.1.2024 passed by C.J.M., Rorawar, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 1361 of 2024 along with chargesheet dated 28.7.2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2023 under sections 308, 506 IPC, P.S. Rorawar, District Aligarh. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and opposite party no. 2 have entered into compromise and the same has been verified by the learned Court concerned and a report regarding the same is on record. It is also submitted that in view of the said compromise, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed against the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have no objection to the above submissions. 5. In view of the fact that the applicant and opposite party no. 2 have entered into compromise and the said compromise has been verified by the learned Court concerned and a report regarding verification of compromise is already on record, keeping in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed in respect of the applicant. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kumar Anish, Sajiya Parveen Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd Khalid Ansari Gajendra Kumar And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. In view of the aforesaid, the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1361 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2023 under sections 308, 506 IPC, P.S. Rorawar, District Aligarh pending before C.J.M., Rorawar, Aligarh are hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. September 25, 2025 Madhurima A482 No. 34303 of 2024 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad