Allowed

Prabhakar Dubey and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC15 May 2018A482/4460/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The charge originated from a civil money dispute that was subsequently settled with compensation paid by the applicant. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that continuing prosecution would serve no purpose and quashed the entire proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings, including the charge sheet, cognizance order, and Case No. 160646 of 2017, were quashed.

Prabhakar Dubey and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4460 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Prabhakar Dubey And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Chandra Mishra,Usha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing 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 charge sheet dated 21.09.2017, cognizance order dated 21.11.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 160646 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 372 of 2017, under Sections- 417, 420, 506, 406, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Sigra, District- Varanasi, pending in the court of C.J.M., Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that arising from the same case crime number Application U/S 482 No. 669 of 2018 has already been decided in the case of co-accused.

¶8

On merits, it is submitted as in the other case so in the present, the dispute between the parties was purely civil and has been settled between them whereunder it has been agreed that the opposite party no. 2 may not press charges against the applicants.

¶9

Application U/S 669 of 2018 has been decided by order dated 05.04.2018 on the following terms:

¶10

"Sri Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has appeared and filed personal affidavit of Smt. Manbhavati Devi.

¶11

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 16.08.2017as well as cognizance dated 21.11.2017 in Case No.160646 of 2017, Case Crime No.372 of 2017under Sections 417, 420, 506, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Sigra, Disctrict Varanasi pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, District Varanasi with further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforementioned case.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no criminal offence as alleged in the FIR had ever occurred. In fact, arising from certain money transaction, misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties, the FIR lodged against the applicant and he had been chargesheeted also.

¶13

However, with passage of time, the parties have been able to resolve their

¶14

money dispute and certain monies are stated to have been paid back by the applicant to opposite party no.2 to her full satisfaction.

¶15

It is then stated that in view of such payments having been made to opposite party no.2, opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the charges against the applicant and she thus realises that the FIR had been lodged on account of misunderstandings and misgivings.

¶16

Paragraphs 3 and 20 of the personal affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 read as under:

¶17

"3. That the deponent received total amount of Rs.85,000/- by Prabhakar Dwivedi thereafter the deponent entered into compromise and the deponent don't want to prosecute the applicant in the present case.

¶18

20. That it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow the Criminal Misc. Application No. 669 of 2018, Indra Devi Prasad Patel and others Vs. State of U.P. and another on the basis of compromise."

¶19

It, thus appears that the dispute between the parties was purely civil arising out of some money/commercial transaction.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant 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 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicant 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 applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

The present application is also allowed on the same terms.

¶25

Order Date :- 15.5.2018 A. Singh

Prabhakar Dubey and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar Dubey 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

Ram Jagi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Anuradha Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Nitu Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Benchelal Vs State of Up and Anotehr

Vijay Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Another