Allowed

Anshul Anand and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2019A482/42776/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of criminal proceedings due to a settlement between parties. The court noted a written compromise dated June 29, 2019, and the presence of key parties. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding compromise in cognizable offences, the court held that continuing the trial served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No. 5580 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 683 of 2015 under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC are quashed.

Anshul Anand and 3 Others Vs State of Up and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42776 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Anshul Anand And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Anas Raza,Avnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Tyagi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the array of applicant no.1 during the course of the day.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 5580 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 683 of 2015, under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Meerut pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut.

¶8

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 applicants.

¶9

In the above regard, a written compromise dated 29th June, 2019 has been entered into between the parties, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the present application.

¶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.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2, wherein in paragraphs-3 and 4 of the short counter affidavit, it has been stated as follows:

¶12

" 3. That during the pendency of trial of the aforesaid case the accused applicants applied for their bail before the court below and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, they have been enlarge on bail. It is pertinent to mention here that meanwhile during the pendency of trial, both the parties amicably settled the money dispute and the alleged money was returned. Thereafter both the parties in their sweet will and accord, willingly executed a compromise deed on 29th June, 2019. According to the compromise deed it is agreed by the opposite party no.2 that she received her entire disputed amount and nothing is rest upon the accused applicants. She further agreed that she does not want to prosecute further the applicants and also expressed to withdraw the criminal case. A true copy of the Compromise deed dated 29.06.2019 is being annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure No.S.CA.-1 to this affidavit.

¶13

4. That in view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the entire proceedings Case No. 5580 of 2016 (arising out of Case Crime No.-683 of 2015), Under Section-420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S.-Civil Lines, Meerut, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.-5, Meerut, otherwise the applicant as well as the deponent shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶14

On 12th December, 2019, opposite party no.2 Sonia Aneja was present in Court, who has been identified by her counsel and her signatures were attested by him. Today, in compliance of the order of the Court dated 12th December, 2019, applicant no.1, namely, Anshu Anand is present in Court today, who has been identified by his counsel and his signatures have also been attested by them.

¶15

On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held wherein 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 5580 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 683 of 2015, under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Meerut pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut, are hereby quashed.

¶25

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

¶26

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 19.12.2019

¶28

Sushil/-

Anshul Anand and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul Anand and 3 Others v. State of Up 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

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

Rakesh Tiwari and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Kalpana @ Pinki and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheela Devi and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Hakeem Khan @ Nannhe Khan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another