Allowed

Javed Ali and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2020A482/42402/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC following a written compromise between the applicant and the private prosecutor. Relying on Apex Court precedents, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial as the dispute was purely civil and private. The application for quashing was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No. 1583 of 2016 under Section 420 IPC pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Agra, are quashed.

Javed Ali and Another Vs State of Up and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42402 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Javed Ali And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ayub Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mohd. Ayub, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet no. 27 of 2016 dated 8th April, 2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1583 of 2016 (State Vs. Javed & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 168 of 2015, under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Agra, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Agra in terms of the compromise.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. 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.

¶8

In the above regard, a written compromise dated 19th October, 2019 has been entered into between the parties, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the present application.

¶9

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.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have filed a joint affidavit of the the applicant no.1 Javed Ali and opposite party no.2, namely, Smt. Maya Devi, wherein in paragraphs-3, 4 and 5 of the joint affidavit, it has been stated as follows:

¶11

" 3. That the applicants and opposite party no.2 proceed with compromise after return the land in dispute and 19.10.2019 compromise was taken place and matter amicable settled between the parties out of court and she did not wants further proceed with the case on the basis of compromise between the parties and wants to quash the proceeding in terms of compromise taken in view of Apex Court Judgment of B.S. Joshi Case reported (2003) 4 SCC 675 (Gian Singh v/s State of Punjab (2012), 10 SCC 303.

¶12

4. That since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the Trial Court and the offence involve private dispute between the parties.

¶13

5. That the opposite party no.2 has no objection to quash the aforesaid proceeding under challenge and no dispute remain at all after compromise"

¶14

In compliance of the order of the Court dated 28th November, 2019, both the applicants, namely, Javed Ali and Chand and opposite party no.2 Smt. Maya Devi are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures were attested by them.

¶15

On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶16

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶17

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another ; (2003)4 SCC 675 ,

¶18

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

¶19

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others ; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held wherein the Apex Court 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 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings

¶23

of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶24

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 1583 of 2016 (State Vs. Javed & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 168 of 2015, under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Agra, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Agra, are hereby quashed.

¶25

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

¶26

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Sushil/-

Javed Ali and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Ali 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

Smt. Resha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farhan @ Ashoor and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Sakhi and 6 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Sonu Vs State of Up and Another