Allowed

Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Chand Sharma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2019A482/42445/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where parties filed a compromise deed resolving a civil dispute involving cheating, concluding no useful purpose is served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No. 374 of 2016 arrested from Crime No. 453 of 2015 under various IPC sections pending before Special CJM Agra were quashed.

Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Chand Sharma and Anr. Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42445 of 2019 Applicant :- Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Chand Sharma And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalit Kumar Srivastava

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of Case No. 374 of 2016 (State Vs. Hemlata Sharma & another), arising out of Crime No. 453 of 2015, under Sections 420, 406,323, 452, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Sikandara, District- Agra on the basis of compromise deed dated 12.11.2019, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶5

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.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

In compliance of the order of the Court dated 5th December, 2019, the applicant no.1 & 2, namely, Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Chand Sharma and Hemlata Sharma and the opposite party no.2, namely, Sumit Prakash Goyal are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures

¶9

have also been attested by them.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 374 of 2016 (State Vs. Hemlata Sharma & another), arising out of Crime No. 453 of 2015, under Sections 420, 406,323, 452, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Sikandara, District- Agra, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, are hereby quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 9.12.2019 JK Yadav

Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Chand Sharma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Chand Sharma and Anr. 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

Rohit Vs State of Up and Another

Chandra Bhusan Tripathi Vs State of Up and Another

Riyasat Ali @ Kaluwa and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahangi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarnath Vs State of U.P. Another