Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 119675 (ALL)

SANJAY v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

A482/672/2025 · 2025-08-01

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44898 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 672 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankur Kumar Panday Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Shri Ram Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Nagarjun Pandey, learned Addl. Government Counsel and Shri Ankur Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4, who has filed a short counter-affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. The petition has been filed seeking quashing of Chargesheet No. 97/2013 dated 26.05.2013 and summoning order dated 05.07.2013 in Criminal Case No. 1531 of 2013, Crime No. 226 of 2013 under Sections 354/504/506, I.P.C. P.S. Mall, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Lucknow, as also the entire proceedings of the said case. 3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at the compromise. Compromise entered into between the parties have been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the petition. The parties have confirmed the terms of the compromise. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. 6. 6. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present petition is allowed and proceedings of Chargesheet No. 97/2013 dated 26.05.2013 and summoning order dated 05.07.2013 in Criminal Case No. 1531 of 2013, Crime No. 226 of 2013 under Sections 354/504/506, I.P.C. P.S. Mall, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Lucknow, as also the entire proceedings of the said case, are hereby quashed. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 1.8.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench