Allowed

Alok Bodhankar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2022A482/3843/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Criminal Misc. Applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summons and revisional orders in industrial dispute cases where parties had reconciled and executed a compromise. The High Court allowed both applications, quashing all proceedings based on the amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings relating to aforementioned cases are hereby quashed. Parties directed to file certified copies before concerned court.

Alok Bodhankar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3843 of 2019 Applicant :- Alok Bodhankar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhay Singh Tomar

¶2

and

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33694 of 2018 Applicant :- M/S Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Through Its C.E.O And M.D. Satish Mehta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhay Singh Tomar,Arun Kumar Singh,Arvind Mishra,Dileep Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash summoning order dated 21.04.2017 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 5365 of 2016 (Uttar Pradesh Uttara Khand Medical & Sales Representative Association Vs. M/s Emcure Pharmaceutical Ltd. and others) under Sections 29, 32 and 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as well as to quash the revisional Court's order dated 10.08.2018 passed in the aforesaid case and also to quash the proceedings of aforesaid Complaint Case.

¶7

Both the cases are connected to each other and related to same matter, hence being disposed of by a common judgment.

¶8

It is submitted that during the course of proceedings, the parties have reconciled their differences and the compromise has been entered between them which has been produced in writing. The opposite party no.2 has acknowledged the aforesaid facts. Vide orders dated 15.09.2022 parties were directed to appear before the court below and permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise deed. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the parties have appeared before the court below and the court below has verified the compromise and have submitted its report vide letter/ report dated 18.10.2022. Both the parties are agreed that in terms of the compromise the

¶9

proceeding of case be terminated and the entire proceedings be quashed.

¶10

Both the parties have entered into amicable settlement. The fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsels for the parties.

¶11

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed that: (SCC p.340, para 58).

¶12

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."

¶13

Where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. [Vide: Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692].

¶14

Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, both the applications under Section 482 of the Code stand allowed .

¶15

The entire proceedings relating to aforementioned cases are hereby quashed.

¶16

The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order download from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.12.2022

¶20

MN/-

¶21

Digitally signed by MAHENDRA NATH Date: 2022.12.08 16:28:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Alok Bodhankar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Bodhankar 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

Vinay Bajaj Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vinay Bajaj Vs State of U.P. and Others

Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Manoj Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sobur Casa Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another