Allowed

Vishal Hasmukh Sheth and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023A482/11966/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant moved under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court observed that the parties had settled their disputes amicably via a compromise deed with full payment made, citing Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing in such circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4109 of 2014 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC were quashed.

Vishal Hasmukh Sheth and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186763

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11966 of 2016

¶4

Applicant :- Vishal Hasmukh Sheth And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bablu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Singh,Devendra Kumar Misra,Yogesh Agarwal

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

Shri Devendra Kumar Misra, Advocate has filed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Devendra Kumar Misra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash summoning order dated 10.12.2015 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4109 of 2014 (M/s. S.E. Investment Limited Vs. Vishal Hasmukh Seth and others), under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Hariparwat, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on account of monetary dispute, the instant criminal case was instituted against the applicants, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of the family and society, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their all disputes and differences in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of this Court to the compromise deed dated 25.03.2022 drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted

¶12

that pursuant to the said compromise, the applicants have paid the disputed amount with interest to opposite party no.2.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said compromise and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, entire proceedings against the applicants be quashed.

¶14

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has filed a counter affidavit wherein in paragraph 5, the factum of said compromise has been acknowledged. It is further stated in paragraph 6 that due amount along with interest has already been paid to opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has further stated, on instructions, that opposite party no.2 has no objection if the entire proceedings are quashed.

¶15

Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶16

This Court is not unmindful of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and noncompoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278] , in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶18

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4109 of 2014 (M/s. S.E. Investment Limited Vs. Vishal Hasmukh Seth and others), under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Hariparwat, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4,

¶19

Agra, are hereby quashed.

¶20

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 Subham

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishal Hasmukh Sheth and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Hasmukh Sheth and 4 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

Manish Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Narayan Vs State of U.P. and an Other

Sant Bal Krishnadas Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ishwar Dayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Jagdish Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another