Allowed

Laxmikant Dubey @ Bablu Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2019A482/22838/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 IPC. The court found that the applicant had amicably settled the dispute with the opposite party through a written compromise, rendering further prosecution unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the proceedings in Case no. 533 of 2019 were quashed.

Laxmikant Dubey @ Bablu Dubey Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22838 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Laxmikant Dubey @ Bablu Dubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dhiraj Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶7

The applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Case no. 533 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime no. 220 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Baharia, district-Allahabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, court no. 2, Allahabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the dispute between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 which had led to the institution of the impugned criminal prosecution of the applicant on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged against him by the opposite party no. 2, has been amicably settled and the parties have entered into a written compromise on 23.5.2019, copy whereof has been brought on record as annexure-SCA-1 to the short counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is no longer interested in the prosecution of the applicant, and she has no objection if the proceedings of the aforementioned case as well as the prosecution of the applicants is quashed.

¶9

Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. In fact, short counter affidavit filed today discloses that the compromise has been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶10

Paragraph no.7 of the said short counter affidavit read as under:

¶11

"That thereafter due to intervention of common friends and respective villagers a compromise was executed between the parties, and the matter was settled between the parties with their free will and consent without any pressure and they have given under takes that they are not interested to contesting the case which is pending between them before the Court concern, and for the same they have made compromise affidavit before the Notary on 13.09.2018. A true/photocopy of the compromise affidavit dated 13.09.2018 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. S.C.A.-1 to this short counter affidavit."

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed

¶13

reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances, Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. In fact, short counter affidavit filed today discloses that the compromise has been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶16

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.6.2019 Faridul

Laxmikant Dubey @ Bablu Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmikant Dubey @ Bablu Dubey v. State of U.P. 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

Mohd. Sharif and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahm Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar Jain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahgul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani Malik Vs State of U.P. and Another