Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR arising from a contractual dispute over Rs. 25 lakhs. Following court orders, parties settled amicably with payment of principal and interest. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent to quash the FIR as the dispute was private with no societal impact.
The impugned FIR is hereby quashed.
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. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8952 of 2019
Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anurag Vajpeyi
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent nos. 1 & 2, Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 18.03.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 274 of 2019, under Sections 323, 342, 392, 406, 420, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sector-49 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
As the impugned F.I.R. was an outcome of dispute between parties arising from alleged non-performance of contractual obligations, on 09.04.2019, on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that he is prepared to pay Rs. 25 Lacs to the informant, following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute is with regard to payment of Rs.25 lacs and his client is willing to pay this amount.
Accordingly, on the learned counsel for the petitioners, the case is adjourned for the day.
List on 16.4.2019 on which date the petitioners will produce a draft of Rs. 25 lacs payable in the name of Preetam Singh Chauhan (respondent no.3).
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners."
Thereafter, some dispute had arisen in respect of the interest amount, following which, on 16.04.2019, the Court passed following order:-
"Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, pursuant to the order, dated 09.04.2019, passed by this Court, has got a bank draft of Rs.25,00,000/- prepared in the name of the wife of respondent no.3 and is ready to offer the same to the respondent no.3.
Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, states that the amount was paid to the petitioners in the year 2017 and, therefore, if
interest is offered to the respondent no.3/his wife, then he may be in a position to obtain consent of the informant for receiving the amount.
Put up this matter on 23.04.2019, on which date, the petitioners shall get a fresh or additional bank draft prepared in favour of the respondent no.3's wife, which should include the interest amount, calculated at the bank rate of interest for the period during which the said amount had been with the petitioners, after consultation with Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
Interim order, granted earlier, to continue till the next date of listing."
Pursuant to the orders dated 09.04.2019 and 16.04.2019, Sri Sushil Shukla has handed over four bank drafts and one cheque of the following descriptions:-
I. DD No. 512014 dated 08.04.2019 of Rs. 10,00,000/-
II.DD No. 976512 dated 08.04.2019 of Rs. 7,50,000/-
III. DD No. 061433 dated 15.04.2019 of Rs. 7,50,000/-
IV. DD No. 976513 dated 08.04.2019 of Rs. 2,50,000/-
V. Cheque No. 164440 dated 22.04.2019 of Rs. 45,000/-
Total-27,95,000/-
Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 3, has accepted the aforesaid drafts and cheque and states that he has no further claim against the petitioners and, therefore, in view of settlement between the parties he would have no objection if the impugned F.I.R. is quashed.
As the parties have settled their dispute amicably, keeping in mind the law laid down by the apex court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303 , as also that it was a private dispute between parties having no impact on society, the petition is entitled to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed.
Order Date:- 24.04.2019
Vibha Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered against the petitioners due to a contractual dispute should be quashed in light of the subsequent settlement between the parties?
Whether the quashing of the FIR is supported by the legal principles laid down in the cited Supreme Court case regarding private disputes with no social impact?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabRelied on¶26
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagdish Prasad Verma And Another
State Of U.P.
Preetam Singh Chauhan
Other Respondent
Manoj Misra
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
