Allowed

Israr and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2019A482/41470/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on grounds of compromise and settlement between parties, holding no useful purpose in prolonging trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings of Case No. 2297 of 2018 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, arising from Crime No. 173 of 2012.

Israr and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41470 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Israr And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naushad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajiv Sisodia

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Charge-sheet no.127 of 2012, dated 08.07.2012 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 2297 of 2018 (State Vs. Chanda & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 173 of 2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Barhapur, District-Bijnor, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, Bijnor.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants 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. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. 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.

¶8

In the above regard, a compromise has been entered into between the parties.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

In compliance of the order of the Court dated 5th December, 2019, the applicants, namely, Israr, Mohd. Asif, Ompal, Nutan

¶11

and the opposite party no.2, namely, Shareef are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them.

¶12

On the instruction received, learned counsel for applicants submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶13

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶14

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶15

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

¶16

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶21

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 2297 of 2018 (State Vs. Chanda & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 173 of 2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Barhapur, District-Bijnor, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, Bijnor are hereby quashed.

¶22

The application is, accordingly, allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Order Date :- 18.12.2019/JK Yadav

Israr and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Israr and 3 Others 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

Ram Kishor Vishwakarma and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shushila Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Riyajuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tayyab and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chatrapal Singh Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Komal Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another