Allowed

Rahul Mishra and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2020A482/30739/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 76 by Learned Judge Manju Rani Chauhan, J. allowed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash quash charge sheet and case proceedings involving Sections 452, 394, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Court held that since dispute was civil in nature, parties resolved differences, settled and peace was reached, no useful purpose served by prolonging proceedings. Based on Apex Court precedent

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Case No. 4091 of 2009, arising out of Crime No. 138 of 2009, under Sections 452, 394, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are quashed.

Rahul Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30739 of 2009

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Mishra And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- H.K. Sharma,Manoj Kumar Singh,Manu Sharma

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Rupak Chaubey,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Applicant nos.1 to 3, namely, Rahul Mishra, Shashi Prakash and Vikas Tiwari and opposite party no.2 Awadhesh Kumar Singh, duly identified by their counsel, are present in person. Their signatures have also been verified by their counsel.

¶7

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Sheetal Prasad Chakravorty, learned counsel for the State.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.841 of 2009, arising out of Crime No.138 of 2009, under Sections 452, 394, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and all consequential proceedings of Case no.4091 of 2009 (State Vs. Rahul Mishra & others), pending in the court of C.J.M. (IIIrd), Varanasi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, an FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no.2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. There was never any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. At present the parties to the dispute have resolved their differences and have made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties 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, namely, Awadhesh Kumar Singh does not wish to press charges against the applicants.

¶10

A joint affidavit/compromise has also been filed in this regard wherein the aforesaid facts stated by the applicants have been confirmed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case, are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants on the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

¶12

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of the Apex Court :- 1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another

¶13

(2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶14

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

¶15

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Cort 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 the case of 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.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceeding of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶20

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.4091 of 2009, arising out of Crime No.138 of 2009, under Sections 452, 394, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are hereby quashed.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 8.1.2020 Anand Sri./-

Rahul Mishra and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Mishra and Others 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

Manoj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Sanjeev @ Fauji and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nahar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sibbu Singh @ Yash Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Alias Lallu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Dilsher Vs State of U.P.