Allowed

Suresh Kumar Bansal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2020A482/33684/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated under the Indian Penal Code. The decision rests on the fact that the dispute was purely of a personal nature and had been amicably settled between the parties via a compromise dated 20.1.2020.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 12 of 2014 were set aside against the applicant.

Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33684 of 2015

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Bansal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Trivedi,Abhinav Gaur,Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,C.L. Chaudhary,Puneet Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri C.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 12 of 2014 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, District Aligarh under section 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the matter has been settled in between the parties and copy of settlement agreement dated 20.1.2020 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit accompanying the 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is thus contended that the dispute has been settled between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (2014) and has submitted that since the matter has been compromised between the parties amicably, hence no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution of the applicant in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the O.P. No. 2, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed further with the matter.

¶10

In view of the fact that the matter is purely of personal nature which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise dated 20.1.2020, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶11

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC

¶12

466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014), Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside against the applicant.

¶13

The present application is accordingly allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.2.2020 Masarrat

Suresh Kumar Bansal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Bansal 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

Aman Veer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Satpal Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kayal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chanda Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sharif Vs State of U.P.