Allowed

Deva @ Raina @ Devdutt Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2019A482/40352/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed the chargesheet and criminal proceedings under Sections 394, 411, 120-B IPC following a settlement between parties. The Court found the dispute civil in nature and noted the prosecution witness intended to turn hostile.

What did the court decide?

Charge Sheet No. 596 of 2013 and entire proceedings of S.T. No. 03 of 2014 quashed.

Deva @ Raina @ Devdutt Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40352 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Deva @ Raina @ Devdutt Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the Charge Sheet No. 596 of 2013 dated 31.12.2013 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No. 03 of 2014 (State vs. Deva @ Raina @ Devdatt Singh and others), Case Crime No. 2923 of 2013, under Sections 394, 411, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun pending in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), Jalaun at Orai.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. It is further argued that there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries and at present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.

¶10

It is also stated by learned counsel for the applicant that such compromise had been filed by the parties before the learned Court below. Copy of the same is appended as Annexure no.3 to

¶11

the affidavit in support of the present application, wherein it has been stated that both the parties wants to settle the dispute.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the affidavit of opposite party no.2 (complainant) in which it has been stated that the compromise has entered into between the parties on 19.09.2019 in outside the court with the presence of some respective persons and now both the parties having no grievances with each other and are living peacefully.

¶13

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

¶20

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 expatiated in detail.

¶21

From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may

¶22

largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.

¶23

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, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶24

Accordingly, the Charge Sheet No. 596 of 2013 dated 31.12.2013 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No. 03 of 2014 (State vs. Deva @ Raina @ Devdatt Singh and others), Case Crime No. 2923 of 2013, under Sections 394, 411, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun pending in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), Jalaun at Orai is hereby quashed.

¶25

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Order Date :- 21.11.2019 JK Yadav

Deva @ Raina @ Devdutt Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deva @ Raina @ Devdutt Singh Chauhan 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

Pappu and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

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

Babu Sahani and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Biraju Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Renu Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishaq Mohd Vs State of U.P. and Another