Allowed

Varun Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2018A482/18641/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the basis of a deed of compromise dated 19.5.2018 executed by the parties, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the criminal proceedings. The complainant could not pursue the case, and the application to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 692 of 2016 under Sections 504, 506, 406 IPC are quashed; application allowed; no order as to costs.

Varun Kumar Gupta and Another Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18641 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Varun Kumar Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Mishra,Vinod Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr.Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 3.5.2016, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 692 of 2016 (Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Varun Kumar Gupta and Others), under Sections 504, 506, 406 IPC, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.

¶7

The present application came up for admission on 9.6.2016 and the Court passed the following interim order:-

¶8

"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete sections 323, 419, 420 IPC in the application.

¶10

Heard Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA.

¶11

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 692/2016, under sections 504, 506, 406 IPC, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad including the summoning order dated 03.05.2016.

¶12

It is submitted that assuming all the allegations in the complaint to be true, no offence under section 406 IPC is made out qua the applicant, firstly, on the ground that agreement of O.P. No.2 was with a company and the company has not been arraigned as an accused and also it is a case of mere breach of agreement/contract, which is actionable only in a civil court, criminality is deliberately assigned for ulterior motives.

¶13

Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of O.P. No.1.

¶14

Issue notice to O.P. No.2.

¶15

Opposite parties may file counter affidavit within one month. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter before the appropriate bench.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 692/2016, under sections 504, 506, 406 IPC, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad shall remain stayed as against applicants."

¶17

During the pendency of the present criminal misc. application, it appears that the matter was amicably settled by the parties between themselves outside the Court. In view of the aforesaid a deed of compromise was duly prepared on notary affidavit, which is dated 19.5.2018. The said deed of compromise dated 19.5.2018 has been brought on record by the opposite party no.2 by means of supplementary affidavit dated 19.5.2018 itself. On the basis of the deed of compromise dated 19.5.2018, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court, as is evident from the deed of compromise dated 19.5.2018, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the above mentioned case pending. He further submits that instead of relegating the parties to the court below, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.

¶18

Mr. Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, does not dispute the factum regarding the compromise so entered into between the parties. He submits that in view of the compromise so entered into between the parties, whereby they have amicably resolved their dispute, no cause of action survives with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned complaint case.

¶19

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶20

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶21

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶22

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶23

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶24

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶25

wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.

¶27

Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 692 of 2016 (Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Varun Kumar Gupta and Others), under Sections 504, 506, 406 IPC, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad, are hereby quashed.

¶28

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Order Date :- 30.7.2018

¶30

Arshad

Varun Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varun Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Subhash Pundeer and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahavir Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Awadhessh Kumar Pandey AND4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Munna Lal and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Up and Another

M/S Good Kare Medico Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another