Allowed

Praveen Kumar Jain and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2018CRLP/11354/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order allows a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court accepted counsel's submission that the matter was amicably settled via a memorandum of understanding and quashed the proceedings based on established Supreme Court principles.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR dated 09.08.2017 (Case Crime No. 1104 of 2017) and the registered proceedings were quashed.

Praveen Kumar Jain and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11354 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Jain And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal,Varad Nath Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,S K Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Varad Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 09.08.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 1104 of 2017, under Sections 420/406/467/468/471 I.P.C., P.S.- Indrapuram, DistrictGhaziabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the parties have entered into compromise as stated by him in paragraph 8 of the writ petition and the respondent no. 4 does not want to pursue the matter any further as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the present case be finally decided. Copy of memorandum of understanding has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

¶8

In view of the fact, the petitioners and respondent no. 4 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶9

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008 (9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another) , the proceedings of the Case Crime No. 1104 of 2017, under Sections 420/406/467/468/471 I.P.C., P.S.- Indrapuram, DistrictGhaziabad and the impugned F.I.R. are hereby quashed.

¶10

The present writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.5.2018 KS

Praveen Kumar Jain and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Jain and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Smt. Adesh Singhal Vs the U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad and 2 Others

Smt. Khusbu Jaiswal Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Suresh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Fulari and Another Vs State of U P and Another

Sulochana Devi Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of U P and 3 Others