Quashed

Ishak Ahmad v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2018A482/20741/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings in a Section 138 NI Act complaint case after accepting a supplemental affidavit stating that the parties had entered into an out-of-court compromise, finding no useful purpose served in continuing litigation.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 8138 of 2018 under Section 138 NI Act were quashed. The application was allowed.

Ishak Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20741 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ishak Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shadab Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Shadab Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Deepak Singh Patel, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 8138 of 2018 (M/s B. S. Transport Vs. Ishak Ahmad) under Section 138 N. I. Act, Police Station-Civil Lines, DistrictRampur as well as the entire proceeding of the above mentioned complaint case

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in the supplementary affidavit filed today. He further submits that during the pendency of the present application before the Court, the parties have entered into a compromise outside the court. As a consequence thereof, an application dated 12.07.2018 was filed before the court below praying therein that the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case be terminated in view of the compromise so entered between the parties. The aforesaid application dated 12.07.2018 is said to be pending before the court below.

¶9

On the basis of the aforesaid facts learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case pending. He therefore submits that this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case in the interest of justice.

¶10

Mr. Deepak Singh Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶11

opposite party no.2 does not dispute the factum of compromise so entered between the parties. He therefore submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, no further cause of action survives with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the complaint case.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

In the aforesaid judgments, 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 judgments noted above has been explained in detail.

¶19

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.

¶20

Accordingly, the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 8138 of 2018 (M/s B. S. Transport Vs. Ishak Ahmad) under Section 138 N. I. Act, Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Rampur, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Muzaffarnagar, are hereby quashed.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 24.7.2018 YK

Ishak Ahmad v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishak Ahmad 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

Padam Chandra Goyal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sri Om and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Bantu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faraien and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mewa Lal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another