Allowed

Nitin Jaiswal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2018A482/10266/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand (implied by context of similar precedents, though text just says Apex Court) quashed criminal proceedings under IPC 419, 420, 406 and IT Act 66 arising from a commercial dispute. The parties had amicably settled the dispute with full repayment, and the complaint was lodged due to misunderstanding.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1047 of 2016 arising from Case Crime No. 435 of 2015 are hereby quashed.

Nitin Jaiswal and Anr. Vs State of U.P… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10266 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin Jaiswal And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1047 of 2016 (State Vs. Sunil Kumar Pandey and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 435 of 2015, under Sections- 419, 420, 406 I.P.C. and Section 66 of I.T. Act, Police Station- Cantt., DistrictGorakhpur, pending in the court of C.J.M., Gorakhpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties is purely commercial in nature arising out of money that had been advanced to the applicants by the opposite party no. 2. With passage of time, the parties have been able to resolve their differences and it is agreed between the parties that the present case has been lodged on account of the misunderstanding and misgivings and that the applicants never had criminal intent.

¶8

It has been further submitted that the applicants had been advanced Rs. 1,20,000/-, which has been returned to the opposite party no. 2 against demand draft dated 20.02.2018 drawn on Syndicate Bank. The opposite party no. 2 has accepted the said amount against the full and final settlement against the dues.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. In fact the present counter affidavit discloses that the compromise has been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6

¶11

SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have compromised the dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not want to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶12

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra ) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶14

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 2.4.2018 A. Singh

Nitin Jaiswal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Jaiswal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Syed Azhar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 others

Mst. Mabooda Khatoon and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Gaurh and 22 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Raj Kishor and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another