Allowed

Krishan Lal Kashyap and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2018A482/23383/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in a complaint case involving theft and mischief. The court held that since the parties had entered into a valid compromise in a related State case arising from the same set of facts, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the complaint proceedings, and thus the case was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 8380 of 2011 under Sections 379, 457 and 427 IPC were quashed.

Krishan Lal Kashyap and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23383 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Krishan Lal Kashyap And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Manish Dev, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2, who has filed an affidavit on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 along with his vaklatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the criminal proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 8380 of 2011 (Dinesh Sharma Vs. Krishan Lal Kashyap and others), under Sections 379, 457 and 427 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in respect of an incident, which occurred on 22.1.2011, an F.I.R. dated 23.1.2011 was lodged by the complainant-opposite party No. 2, which was registered as Case Crime No. 38 of 2011, under sections 147, 379, 411 and 427 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur. The said F.I.R.was lodged against the present applicant No. 1, his sons and 10-15 unknown persons. Upon investigation of the aforesaid Case Crime, the police submitted a charge sheet dated 9.2.2011, upon which cognizance was taken and the accused persons mentioned in the charge sheet were summoned. Consequently, Criminal Case No. 3958 of 20211 (State Vs. Amit Kumar and others) came into existence in the Court of C.J.M., Saharanpur. In the aforesaid case, the parties entered into a compromise on 01.06.2016 and on the basis of the same, the C.J.M., Saharanpur, vide order dated 22.8.23016, discharged all the accused persons.

¶8

On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the fact as noted herein above, a compromise application dated 27.7.2016 was filed in the complaint case pending before the Court below. However, since no order has been passed by the Court below on the aforesaid compromise application even after expiry of a period of two years, the applicants have now approached this Court by

¶9

means of the present application under section 482 Cr. P. C.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the State case and the complaint case are based on the same set of facts and once the parties have already entered into a compromise in the State case and orders have been passed in the light of the same, there is no reason to deny the same benefit to the present applicants particularly when a compromise application has also been filed in the complaint case.

¶11

He, therefore, submits that in identical matter, this Court has quashed the proceedings and in support thereof reliance has been placed upon the judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Manoj vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2004 (49) ACC, 302 .

¶12

Mr. Manish Dev Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the factum with regard to the compromise, which has taken place between the parties and pursuant there to a compromise application dated 22.7.2016 having been filed before the Court below. He submits that once the parties have entered into a compromise, no cause of action survives with the opposite party No. 2 to pursue the complaint.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for

¶21

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.

¶22

Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 8380 of 2011 (Dinesh Sharma Vs. Krishan Lal Kashyap and others), under Sections 379, 457 and 427 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, are hereby quashed.

¶23

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

¶24

O rder Date :- 19.7.2018 HSM

Krishan Lal Kashyap and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Lal Kashyap 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

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.

Sudhakar Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahmed Raza and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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