Allowed

Pawan Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2020A482/13339/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a private civil dispute. Relying on apex court precedents, the judgment quashed the case after accepting that the parties had settled their differences and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 344 of 2014 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dev. II), Hapur, are quashed.

Pawan Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13339 of 2015

¶3

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Nath Rai,Ashok Kumar Rai,Rahul Kumar Tyagi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Manoj Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. P.S. Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Manoj Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the Criminal Complaint Case No. 344 of 2014 (Raman Lata Vs. Pawan and others), under Sections 420, 471, 468 I.P.C., Police Station - Hapur, Kotwali, District - Hapur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dev. II), Hapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties was purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the informant owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. It is further argued that there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries and at present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that 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.

¶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. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the compromise deed filed as Annexure - 1 to the supplementary affidavit in which it has been stated that the compromise has entered into between the parties with the

¶11

presence of some respective persons and now both the parties having no grievances with each other and are living peacefully.

¶12

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases : (i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677; (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; (v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;

¶13

In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

¶14

Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been expatiated in detail.

¶15

From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶17

Accordingly, the entire proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 344 of 2014 (Raman Lata Vs. Pawan and others), under Sections 420, 471, 468 I.P.C., Police Station - Hapur, Kotwali, District - Hapur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dev. II), Hapur, are hereby quashed.

¶18

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.1.2020 Priya

Pawan Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. 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

Firoz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Narain Shukla @ (Neeraj Shukla) Vs Special Chief Judicial and Another

Anil Singh @ Anni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deshraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

R.D. Sharma @ Rishi Dutt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others