Allowed

Pankaj and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2018A482/22232/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court exercised powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1199 of 2016 involving Sections 406, 354, 452, 506 IPC because a compromise was successfully entered into outside the court by the parties, rendering further litigation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1199 of 2016 under Sections 406, 354, 452, 506 IPC are quashed. No order as to costs.

Pankaj and 2 Others Vs State of Up and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22232 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivangi Bhargava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Shivangi Bhargava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2. He has filed his vakalatnama today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1199 of 2016 (Smt. Premvati Vs. Pankaj and others) under Sections 406, 354, 452, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali DistrictRampur pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the pendency of the above mentioned complaint case, the parties have entered into a compromise outside the court and as a consequence thereof, the applicants have filed an application dated 10.01.2017 before the court below for deciding the above mentioned complaint case in terms of the compromise so entered between the parties. The said compromise application dated 22.01.20158 was filed before the court below as is evident from the endorsement made by the Presiding Officer on the said application, a certified copy of which is on the record at page 23 of the paper book.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case. He therefore, submits that in the light of the aforesaid facts, this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint cases.

¶9

Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, no cause of action now survives with the complainant, opposite party no.2 to pursue the complaint. He therefore contends that in case the proceedings of the above

¶10

mentioned complaint case are quashed by this Court, the opposite party no.2 will not have any grievance.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Accordingly, the proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 1199 of 2016 (Smt. Premvati Vs. Pankaj and others) under Sections406, 354, 452, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali District-Rampur pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, are hereby quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 18.7.2018 YK

Pankaj and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj and 2 Others v. State of Up 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

Yogendra Sonkar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Shyam Narayan Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramautar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Suresh Chandra Vaishya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asp Construction and Builders Private Limited and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dayaram Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.