High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri J.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State and Sri Abhishek Dubey (AOR No. A/A 218/2022) holding brief of Sri Ramkripal Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This Court entertained the application on 11.04.2019 while passing the following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 31.10.2016 submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicants on which learned Judicial Magistrate-I, District Jaunpur has taken cognizance on 22.11.2017 in Criminal Case No. 2913 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 432 of 2016, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 452, 352, 506, 326-B I.P.C., Police Station- Sujanganj.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire case lodged against the applicants is false and motivated. It is submitted that the opposite party no.2 has falsely implicated the applicant no.1, his wife and other ladies of the house only to cause harassment. In this regard, it is further stated that though the daughter of the opposite party no.2 claims to have received injuries, however, the medical report completely falsifies that statement. As to the allegation of acid attack on the opposite party no.2, it is further submitted that neither such allegations were made in the FIR nor the Investigating Officer found any evidence to that effect. However, subsequently, at the insistence of the Circle Officer, the applicants have been summoned under Section 326-B IPC. Also, it is submitted that in any case applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 who are ladies have been summoned without any basis.

4. Insofar as, applicant no.1 is concerned, the arguments advanced is largely factual and may require a perusal of evidence before any firm conclusions be drawn. Therefore, prayer for quashing the proceedings at the instance of applicant no.1 is refused.

5. The allegations made against the applicant no.1 are direct and factual, therefore, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused qua applicant no.1.

6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of in respect of applicant no. 1.

8. As to the applicant nos.2 to 4, it appears that there is no evidence to proceed against them at this stage, they being ladies who have been generally nominated in the FIR.

9. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

10. Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

11. List thereafter.

12. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed against the applicant nos. 2 to 4. "

3. Thereafter on 19.11.2024 following order was passed: "1. Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ramkripal Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Ms. Harshita Rani, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 31.10.2016 submitted by the I.O. against the applicants on which learned Judicial Magistrate-I, District Jaunpur has taken cognizance on 22.11.2017 in Criminal Case No.2913 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.432 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 452, 352, 506, 326-B I.P.C., P.S. Sujanganj, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, District Jaunpur.

3. From the perusal of the order sheet, it appears that this Court vide order dated 11.04.2019 stayed the further proceeding against the applicant nos.2 to 4 and rejected the application on behalf of the applicant no.1. 4. Today, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly submitted that the parties have settled their dispute amicably. It is further submitted that a written compromise dated 02.07.2024 was also entered into between the parties and copy of the same has been annexed at page No.11 of the supplementary affidavit dated 13.08.2024. It is further submitted that the copy of this compromise had already been filed before the court of A.C.J. (S.D.)-II/ A.C.J.M., Jaunpur, therefore, the aforesaid proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

5. From the perusal of compromise annexed at page no.11 of the supplementary affidavit, it appears that though this compromise has been filed before the court of A.C.J. (S.D.)-II/ A.C.J.M., Jaunpur, but yet to be verified by the court, therefore, the court concerned is directed to verify the aforesaid compromise after summoning the parties within a period of two months and after verification of the aforesaid compromise, the court concerned will submit its report to this Court on or before the next date of listing.

6. Put up this case in the week commencing 20.01.2025.

7. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Criminal Case No.2913 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.432 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 452, 352, 506, 326-B I.P.C., P.S. Sujanganj, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate- I, District Jaunpur. "

4. There is a report of the Additional Civil Judge (S.D) II/ ACJM, Jaunpur dated 11.03.2025 showing the fact that the parties have compromised and the same stands verified.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is nothing remains to be further adjudicated.

7. Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the said fact.

8. Considering the submission of the parties and stand taken by them, the application stands allowed.

9. The proceeding of charge sheet dated 31.10.2016 as well as cognizance order dated 22.11.2017 in criminal case no. 2913 of 2018 arising out of case crime no. 432 of 2016 under Sectio 147, 323,504, 452, 352, 506, 326B IPC, P.S. Sujanganj, District Jaunpur in so far as it relates to applicant nos. 2 to 4 are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 C. MANI CHANDRAMANI VERMA CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri J.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State and Sri Abhishek Dubey (AOR No. A/A 218/2022) holding brief of Sri Ramkripal Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This Court entertained the application on 11.04.2019 while passing the following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 31.10.2016 submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicants on which learned Judicial Magistrate-I, District Jaunpur has taken cognizance on 22.11.2017 in Criminal Case No. 2913 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 432 of 2016, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 452, 352, 506, 326-B I.P.C., Police Station- Sujanganj.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire case lodged against the applicants is false and motivated. It is submitted that the opposite party no.2 has falsely implicated the applicant no.1, his wife and other ladies of the house only to cause harassment. In this regard, it is further stated that though the daughter of the opposite party no.2 claims to have received injuries, however, the medical report completely falsifies that statement. As to the allegation of acid attack on the opposite party no.2, it is further submitted that neither such allegations were made in the FIR nor the Investigating Officer found any evidence to that effect. However, subsequently, at the insistence of the Circle Officer, the applicants have been summoned under Section 326-B IPC. Also, it is submitted that in any case applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 who are ladies have been summoned without any basis.

4. Insofar as, applicant no.1 is concerned, the arguments advanced is largely factual and may require a perusal of evidence before any firm conclusions be drawn. Therefore, prayer for quashing the proceedings at the instance of applicant no.1 is refused.

5. The allegations made against the applicant no.1 are direct and factual, therefore, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused qua applicant no.1.

6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of in respect of applicant no. 1.

8. As to the applicant nos.2 to 4, it appears that there is no evidence to proceed against them at this stage, they being ladies who have been generally nominated in the FIR.

9. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

10. Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

11. List thereafter.

12. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed against the applicant nos. 2 to 4. "

3. Thereafter on 19.11.2024 following order was passed: "1. Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ramkripal Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Ms. Harshita Rani, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 31.10.2016 submitted by the I.O. against the applicants on which learned Judicial Magistrate-I, District Jaunpur has taken cognizance on 22.11.2017 in Criminal Case No.2913 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.432 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 452, 352, 506, 326-B I.P.C., P.S. Sujanganj, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, District Jaunpur.

3. From the perusal of the order sheet, it appears that this Court vide order dated 11.04.2019 stayed the further proceeding against the applicant nos.2 to 4 and rejected the application on behalf of the applicant no.1. 4. Today, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly submitted that the parties have settled their dispute amicably. It is further submitted that a written compromise dated 02.07.2024 was also entered into between the parties and copy of the same has been annexed at page No.11 of the supplementary affidavit dated 13.08.2024. It is further submitted that the copy of this compromise had already been filed before the court of A.C.J. (S.D.)-II/ A.C.J.M., Jaunpur, therefore, the aforesaid proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

5. From the perusal of compromise annexed at page no.11 of the supplementary affidavit, it appears that though this compromise has been filed before the court of A.C.J. (S.D.)-II/ A.C.J.M., Jaunpur, but yet to be verified by the court, therefore, the court concerned is directed to verify the aforesaid compromise after summoning the parties within a period of two months and after verification of the aforesaid compromise, the court concerned will submit its report to this Court on or before the next date of listing.

6. Put up this case in the week commencing 20.01.2025.

7. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Criminal Case No.2913 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.432 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 452, 352, 506, 326-B I.P.C., P.S. Sujanganj, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate- I, District Jaunpur. "

4. There is a report of the Additional Civil Judge (S.D) II/ ACJM, Jaunpur dated 11.03.2025 showing the fact that the parties have compromised and the same stands verified.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is nothing remains to be further adjudicated.

7. Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the said fact.

8. Considering the submission of the parties and stand taken by them, the application stands allowed.

9. The proceeding of charge sheet dated 31.10.2016 as well as cognizance order dated 22.11.2017 in criminal case no. 2913 of 2018 arising out of case crime no. 432 of 2016 under Sectio 147, 323,504, 452, 352, 506, 326B IPC, P.S. Sujanganj, District Jaunpur in so far as it relates to applicant nos. 2 to 4 are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 C. MANI CHANDRAMANI VERMA CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Vikas Budhwar,J.)