Allowed

Mangal and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2019A482/43085/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arising from an FIR under multiple IPC sections, after the parties entered into a dispute settlement compromise. The court held no useful purpose was served by prolonging the trial.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal Case 58 of 2018 arising out of Crime No. 586 of 2016 were quashed. No order as to costs.

Mangal and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43085 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mangal And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Tushar Oberoi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Swetashwa Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant Nekram on behalf of all the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Mathura as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case. 58 of 2018 (State Vs. Mangal & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 586 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Highway, District-Mathura, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court no.5, Mathura.

¶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 applicant.

¶9

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

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the

¶11

correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed today a supplementary affidavit on behalf of Sri Nekram (applicant no.4). In paragraphs nos. 3 and 4, it has been stated as follows:

¶13

"4. That it is further pertinent to mention here that the deponent/applicant no.4 has been duly authorized by the other applicants to do pairvi on their behalf in the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and for the said purpose as Notarized Power of Attorney has also been executed by the applicant nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in favour of applicant no.4/deponent.

¶14

5. That the deponent/applicant no.4 is therefore, fully competent and authorized to appear on behalf of other applicants in the present application.

¶15

6. That it is humbly prayed that the personal appearance of the other applicants in the present application may kindly be exempted in view of the aforementioned facts. However, the deponent/applicant no.4 is personally present to verify and testify the factum of execution of compromise between the parties, pursuant whereto the quashment of the entire criminal proceedings is prayed for."

¶16

In compliance of the order of the Court dated 6th December, 2019, the applicant no.4, namely, Nekram and the opposite party no.2, namely, Rahul are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them. The applicant no.4 Nekram on behalf of the other applicants is present in Court, therefore, personal appearance of other applicants exempted.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case. 58 of 2018 (State Vs. Mangal & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 586 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Highway, District-Mathura, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court no.5, Mathura, are hereby quashed.

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 19.12.2019 JK Yadav

Mangal and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal and 4 Ors. 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

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