Applicant moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings filed under Section 406 IPC based on a compromise settlement. The court found the dispute amicably settled and quashed the entire proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
Quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 434 of 2018 under Section 406 IPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8687 of 2019
Applicant :- Shazade Khurram Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shobh Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hari Mohan Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Shri Shobh Nath, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the state.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 434 of 2018 (Divya Srivastava Vs. Mattel Toys Indra Pvt. Ltd. and others) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Cantt. District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Varanasi in terms of compromise.
Pursuant to order dated 07.03.2019, the parties appeared before the court below on 28.03.2019 for verification of settlement / compromise, who were duly identified by their counsel's, while verifying the compromise / settlement dated 28.03.2019.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, opposite party no.2 has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in noncompoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.
Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 434 of 2018 (Divya Srivastava Vs. Mattel Toys Indra Pvt. Ltd. and others) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Cantt. District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Varanasi against the applicant are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the partie.
Order Date :- 17.7.2019 Sanjeet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings initiated under Section 406 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon settlement of dispute.
Whether the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash proceedings to restore peace between parties in a commercial dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabExplained¶11
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and anotherExplained¶8
B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabExplained¶8
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shazade Khurram
State Of Up
Divya Srivastava
Mattel Toys Indra Pvt. Ltd.
Om Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
