The High Court quashed complaint proceedings under Section 420 IPC and a related order dated 14.5.2015 in a private dispute between business partners that was amicably settled via compromise, treating it as essentially civil in nature.
Criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 753 of 2014 and the order dated 14.5.2015 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19434 of 2015
Applicant :- Surinder Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 753 of 2014 (Aman Kapoor Vs. Surinder Singh Narang and others), under Sections 420 I.P.C., P.S. Chowk, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi and also quash the order dated 14.5.2015 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that applicants and opposite party no.2, proprietor of M/s Kala Mandir had business dealing over past four years and there was some dispute over accounting and due to misunderstanding between the parties, opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case against the applicants. It is stated that both with the intervention of friends and influential persons, have buried their hatchet and have arrived at a compromise. The opposite party no.2 has stated that he has received entire amount which was due towards him by the applicants. It is stated that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and private one, thus in view of the compromise, the proceedings are quashed. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that his client has no objection, if the proceedings impugned in the present application are quashed in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averment made in the complaint which transpires that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute amicably.
In view of law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian
Singh vs State Of Punjab and another i n Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24 September, 2012, the aforesaid proceeding is hereby quashed. Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., accordingly stands allowed. A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 18.11.2019
MN/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC and a subsequent order should be quashed in view of an amicable settlement and compromise between the parties.
Whether the dispute is essentially civil in nature arising from business dealings and accounting misunderstandings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab and anotherExplained¶10
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab and another i n Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24 September, 2012
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surinder Singh and 2 Others
State of U.P.
Other Opposite Party
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
