Allowed

B.P. Singhal and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2021A482/10503/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a criminal complaint filed under IPC Sections 341, 469, 504, and 506 arising from a service dispute between a former employee and his employer. Finding the dispute private and settled, the Court held no useful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 08.05.2003 in Complaint Case No.1110 of 2003 under Sections 341, 469, 504 and 506 IPC is quashed.

B.P. Singhal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10503 of 2003

¶3

Applicant :- B.P. Singhal And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Samit Gopal,Samarth Sinha,Vijay Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Arvind Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

None present for the opposite parties.

¶7

Heard Sri Samarth Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants.

¶8

Present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No.1110 of 2003 (Radhey Shyam Mishra Vs B.P. Singhal and others) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad under Sections-341, 469, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Shikohabad, District-Firozabad.

¶9

The dispute between the parties arose out of a contract of service wherein the complainant Radhey Shyam Mishra was an employee of M/s Hind Lamps Ltd. of which the present applicants were officers and authorities, at the relevant time. Certain dispute arose between the parties owing to the cessation of employment of the complainant whereafter he was required to vacate company quarter key in which he was residing, in the course of his employment, by M/s Hind Lamps Ltd.

¶10

In the above factual background, the criminal complaint came to be lodged by the complainant Radhey Shyam Mishra. Upon challenge raised in the present application, this court had stayed the proceedings in the complaint case by the following order dated 16.12.2003.

¶11

"Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA and also perused the materials on record.

¶12

It is said that the opposite party no.2 sought voluntary retirement from the Company [M/s Hind Lamps Ltd Shikohabad ]. He was also paid a sum of Rs.3,96,454/through cheque. He challenged that order of his retirement before this Court in the writ petition. Applicants also initiated proceedings for eviction of the opposite party no.2 as he ceased to be the employee of the company. He filed civil suit for restraining the applicants from evicting him from the accommodation provided by the Company. That suit was also dismissed. However with a view to thwart the proceedings under Section 360 of Company Act false complaint case no.1110 was brought by him.

¶13

Admit. Issue notice. Let counter affidavit be filed within 4 weeks.

¶14

Put up on 28.01.2004 for further hearing.

¶15

In the meantime, proceedings of criminal complaint case no.1110 of 2003 (Radhey Shyam Mishra Vs. B.P. Singhal and others) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad under Sections 341, 469, 504, 506 IPC shall remain stayed."

¶16

While the proceeding in the complaint case has remained thus pending, a settlement is stated to have been reached between the parties. Copy of the same has been brought on record by means of the supplementary affidavit. Perusal of the same reveals that the real dispute (civil) has been settled between the parties and the complainant does not wish to press the complaint any further.

¶17

Looking at the nature of the offence alleged, it appears, the dispute was a private dispute between the parties arising from a service contract between the complainant and his employer M/s Hind Lamps Ltd. Such dispute having reached a proper settlement, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to go on.

¶18

Accordingly, the order dated 08.05.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No.1110 of 2003 (Radhey Shyam Mishra Vs B.P. Singhal and others) under Sections-341, 469, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Shikohabad, District-Firozabad, is quashed.

¶19

Present application is allowed .

¶20

Order Date :- 22.10.2021 S.Chaurasia

B.P. Singhal and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.P. Singhal and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh @ Bachchan Vs State of U.P.

Utkarsh Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Bateshwar Dayal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Doctor Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Agnihotri and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others