Allowed

Suresh Chand and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2019A482/41511/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Sessions Trial No. 981 of 2008. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held that the dispute was civil and private in nature, resolved via compromise, and continuation would waste time due to potential witness hostility.

What did the court decide?

Sessions Trial No. 981 of 2008 arising out of Crime No. 75 of 2008 under Sections 147, 452, 323/149, 325/149, 308/149 IPC is quashed.

Suresh Chand and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41511 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Chand And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kesh Mani Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Chandra Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Joint affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicants as well as opposite party no. 2 in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Kesh Mani Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rajesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 981 of 2008 (State Vs. State Vs. Suresh Chand and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2008, under Sections 147, 452, 323/149, 325/149, 308/149 I.P.C., Police Station - Rabupura, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, I, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties was 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants.

¶10

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

¶11

the joint affidavit on behalf of both the parties in which it has been stated that the compromise has entered into between the parties 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.

¶12

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases : (i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677; (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; (v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 981 of 2008 (State Vs. State Vs. Suresh Chand and others), arising out of Case Crime

¶18

No. 75 of 2008, under Sections 147, 452, 323/149, 325/149, 308/149 I.P.C., Police Station - Rabupura, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, I, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Priya

Suresh Chand and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chand and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Guru Sewak Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jayram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sarwar and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Raj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheo Kumar Tripathi Alias Rajjan Tripathi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Raksha Rawat Vs State of U.P. and Another