Allowed

Ashish Bansal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023A482/13183/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted under various sections of the IPC. The proceedings were based on a crime where the parties had entered into an amicable compromise which was verified by the lower court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in certain cognizable offences, the court

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No. 6858 of 2022 under sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 120B IPC are quashed on the basis of the compromise deed verified by the lower court.

Ashish Bansal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13183 of 2023 Applicant :- Ashish Bansal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

This application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 6858 of 2022 (State Vs. Ashish Bansal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 724 of 2020, under section 406, 420, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

¶5

Earlier an Application U/s 482 No. 19841 of 2022 was filed before this Court which was disposed off on 10.10.2022, by passing the following order:-

¶6

"List has been revised. Learned counsel for the applicant is present. None appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after filing of the present application the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have entered into compromise. In such circumstances, continuance of proceedings in the present case would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶8

Learned AGA submits that in case the compromise deed is filed before the court concerned it is always open to the court concerned to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶9

In view of the above, the aforesaid application is disposed of with a direction that in case the compromise deed is filed before the court concerned within two weeks from today, the court concerned will pass appropriate orders on the compromise deed, in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties.

¶10

Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. "

¶11

In compliance of the aforesaid order compromise has been verified on 10.03.2023 in the presence of parties and their respective counsels. Certified copy of aforesaid order has been annexed at Page 85 to the affidavit filed in support of application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

In the aforesaid judgments, 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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶21

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

¶22

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 6858 of 2022 (State Vs. Ashish Bansal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 724 of 2020, under section 406, 420, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad on the basis of compromise are hereby quashed.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 17.4.2023/Arti

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Bansal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish 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

Raju @ Rajnikant and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanwarpal@ Lala and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Zubair Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Deepam Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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