Allowed

Amar Jeet Singh Taneja and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2019A482/8733/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC arising from a crime dated 2016. The application was based on a settlement and compromise between the applicant and the State, rendering further criminal proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings arising out of crime no.109 of 2016 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC are hereby quashed.

Amar Jeet Singh Taneja and Another Vs State of Up and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8733 of 2019 Applicant :- Amar Jeet Singh Taneja And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajnee Kant Pandey

¶3

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of charge sheet dated 31.05.2016 arising out of case crime no.109 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Surajpur, district Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of compromise.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed and sworn by opposite party no.2 is indicative of fact that applicants are not interested in pursuing their legal remedy and the dispute between the parties has been compromised. It is thus, argued that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicants is bad in law. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance in the matter reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466 in the matter of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another in support of his contention.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the fact of compromise and has stated that in view of the compromise both the parties do not want to pursue the matter any further.

¶8

The dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending.

¶9

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466 in the matter of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another in support of his contention, proceeding of charge sheet dated 31.05.2016 arising out of case crime no.109 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Surajpur, district Gautam Budh Nagar, is hereby quashed.

¶10

The instant application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶11

Order Date :- 2.5.2019 Raj

Amar Jeet Singh Taneja and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Jeet Singh Taneja and Another 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

Mohd Naseem and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haris Husain @ Raja and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpa Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ramesh Chand@Ramesh Chandra and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Rajkaran Vs State of Up and Another

Smt Usha Verma Vs State of Up and Another