RAJESH RASTOGI AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO AND ANOTHER
/9671/2024 · 2025-01-07
Saurabh Lavania
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 166737 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 166737 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1127 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9671 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajesh Rastogi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Kumar Soni,Madhavesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nevedita Gupta Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant in Court today is taken on record. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of the instant applicant filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, 2023, the applicant has sought quashing of Charge Sheet No.01 of 2016 dated 15.12.2016 in Case No.5984 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.352 of 2016 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, PS- Saadatganj, District - Lucknow pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow. In compliance of order of this Court dated 25.10.2024, the applicants have filed supplementary affidavit indicating that the suit has been filed by the parties for dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also stated that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the present application. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by
learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, 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 as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No.352 of 2016, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant(s). Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench